« 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


THE 


Psychology  of  Jesus 


A  STUDT  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT 
OF  HIS  SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS 


BY 

Albert  Wellman  Hitchcock,  Ph.  D.  (Clark) 


UBRAft Y  Of 


jyL  -  5  m 


BOSTON 

die  ptlffrim  Press 


CHICAGO 


Copyright ,  1507,  by 
Frank  K.  Sanders 


The  Plimpton  Press  Norwood  Moss.  USA, 


to 

CENTRAL  CHURCH 
WORCESTER 
MASSACHUSETTS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/psychologyofjesuOOhitc_O 


PREFACE 


The  standpoint  from  which  this  study  is  made 
is  rather  that  of  a  layman  than  of  a  theologian, 
and  the  treatment  of  questions  of  theology  is 
fuller  and  simpler  in  some  places  on  that  account. 

Each  age  must  get  at  the  truth  through  the 
forms  of  thought  given  into  its  keeping.  Out  of 
the  inherited  words  and  the  old  methods  of 
approach,  the  student  gathers  up  the  essential 
truth  in  every  sphere  and  recasts  it  in  the  newer 
and  more  familiar  shapes  of  his  day.  The  study 
of  the  psychological  development  of  Jesus  was 
assured  from  the  time  when  in  1863  H.  Holz- 
mann  asserted  that  Jesus  did  not  claim  to  be  the 
Messiah  until  after  the  episode  at  Cassarea 
Philippi.  The  battle-ground  of  criticism  has 
been  chosen  in  the  realm  of  psychology  of  late, 
and  scholarship  is  divided  upon  the  question 
whether  we  are  justified  in  treating  the  Gospels 
as  of  such  historic  value  as  to  afford  material 
for  a  psychology  of  Jesus.  Our  day  and  race 
do  not  judge  historic  accuracy  in  the  same  way 
that  the  first  century  and  the  writers  of  Palestine 

vii 


PREFACE 


•  •  • 
vm 

estimated  it.  We  '  demand  objectivity  where 
they  were  often  satisfied  with  purely  subjective 
experiences;  and  our  prosaic,  matter-of-fact 
minds  do  not  always  appreciate  the  poetic  at¬ 
mosphere  through  wdiieh  the  Semites  saw  things, 
and  in  which  they  wrote.  This  failure  is  the  chief 
cause  of  the  absurd  multiplication  of  the  sects 
of  Protestantism. 

Men  of  small  literary  culture,  enthusiastic  in 
advocating  a  new  faith,  could  hardly  be  expected 
to  escape  subjective  bias  and  the  trend  of  the 
times.  And  yet,  beneath  all  recognizable  current 
influences  without  and  within,  an  assured  kernel 
remains  in  the  Gospels  which  brings  to  us  an 
outline  sketch  of  one  dominant  character  in  un¬ 
mistakable  originality  and  power.  Making  all 
due  allowances  for  Oriental  imagination  and  the 
zeal  of  eager  partizans;  for  disagreements  among 
the  evangelists  due  to  their  various  points  of  view, 
and  the  historic  conceptions  which  they  share 
with  writers  like  Livy  and  Tacitus,  we  are  war¬ 
ranted  in  a  careful  and  critical  endeavor  to 
trace  the  development  and  inner  life  of  the  man 
whose  personality  was  the  compelling  power  be¬ 
hind  their  lives  as  well  as  their  narrative,  and 
whose  teachings  are  the  chief  treasure  of  the 
civilized  world.  There  is  none  too  much  ma¬ 
terial,  and  it  is  none  too  well  arranged,  for  a 


PREFACE 


IX 


Psychology  of  Jesus;  but  surely  there  is  enough 
to  afford  us  ground  for  study. 

This  is  an  age  of  psychological  approach  in  all 
biography.  Facts  are  dead  until  they  are  brought 
into  living  contact  with  a  person,  and  made  to 
take  their  places  as  contributory  to  his  person¬ 
ality.  We  do  not  know  a  person  until  we  have 
gained  access  to  him  on  this  inner  side.  How 
he  acted,  and  how  he  reacted  to  experience,  how 
he  grew,  and  what  his  point  of  view  was  at 
successive  stages  of  his  life,  what  influences  his 
experiences  had  upon  him,  and  what  the  pre¬ 
dominant  motives  were  which  ruled  his  spirit  — 
these  are  the  considerations  raised  in  studying  a 
life. 

If  there  was  no  life  of  Christ,  apart  from  the 
Gospels,  until  modern  times,  the  multiplication 
of  such  attempts  at  biography  within  the  last 
fifty  years  is  proof  of  the  value  found  in  them. 
These  lives  of  Christ  make  use  of  a  genetic  order 
more  or  less  clearly  traced  in  the  Gospel  story, 
but  nowhere  in  English,  at  least,  has  any  one 
given  a  thorough  study  of  the  psychological 
development  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  nearest  ap¬ 
proach  to  it  is  in  a  book  by  a  German  scholar 
(Baldensperger’s  Das  Selbstbeivusstsein  Jesu) 
which  has  recently  appeared  in  a  new  edition 
and  which  has  earned  a  high  place  in  the  litera- 


X 


PREFACE 


ture  of  the  New  Testament  student.  A  fertile 
field  of  suggestion  and  vision  is  opened  by  the 
psychological  approach  for  the  study  and  the 
understanding  of  this  fascinating  personality 
as  it  is  pictured  in  the  Gospels. 

If  Jesus  was  perfectly  human,  then  we  must 
conclude  with  Frederic  Denison  Maurice  that 
he  was  therefore  divine.  If  the  race  is  in  any 
true  sense  the  offspring  of  God,  as  both  Old  and 
New  Testament  declare,  then  a  perfect  human 
being  is  divine.  I  find  the  character  of  Jesus 
such  that  he  is  rendered  exceptional  among  men 
by  his  finer  quality.  It  is  therefore  with  a  free 
hand  that  this  study  is  undertaken,  on  the  purely 
human  basis.  To  apply  the  common  methods 
of  study  to  Jesus  is  not  rendered  impossible, 
even  if  he  be  all  that  the  New  Testament  claims 
for  him.  A  normal  person,  developed  psy¬ 
chologically  to  fullest  spiritual  being,  would  not 
be  removed  from  the  action  of  ordinary  psy¬ 
chological  laws.  He  would  not  acquire  knowl¬ 
edge  otherwise  than  as  his  fellows  do,  nor  would 
he  become  an  authority  upon  matters  he  never 
studied.  His  mind  would  be  keen,  and  his 
intuitions  acute  and  accurate,  but  he  would  live 
like  other  men  and  grow  according  to  genetic 
laws. 

The  story  which  is  more  revered  and  loved 


PREFACE 


xi 


than  any  other  told  by  the  lips  of  man;  the  life 
which  opens  our  eyes  to  the  fuller  meanings  of 
life  as  no  other  has  done;  the  character  which 
has  moved  the  world  upward  more  than  any 
other  —  story,  life,  character,  cannot  be  ac¬ 
counted  for  as  the  creation  of  imagination,  how¬ 
ever  strongly  the  person  of  Jesus  may  have  acted 
to  draw  the  myths  and  fancies  of  the  centuries 
and  the  races  after  him.  Jesus  is  not  merely  an 
ideal  of  our  highest  dreams;  he  came  to  be  that 
because  he  was  a  character  in  history  first.  As 
such  a  character  he  must  be  studied,  in  all  rever¬ 
ence,  and  yet  with  perfect  frankness,  that  we  may 
read  between  the  lines  the  processes  by  which  he 
came  “unto  a  fullgrown  man,  unto  the  measure 
of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ.” 

The  writer  would  express  his  great  debt  to  the 
Rev.  T.  T.  Munger,  D.D.,  of  New  Haven,  Con¬ 
necticut,  and  Prof.  F.  C.  Porter,  D.D.,  of  Yale 
University,  who  have  given  valuable  criticism 
of  the  manuscript,  and  to  President  G.  Stanley 
Hall,  LL.D.  of  Clark  University,  under  the 
inspiration  of  whose  instruction  and  friendly 
interest  the  task  has  been  completed. 


INTRODUCTION 


The  author  of  this  volume  was  suddenly 
removed  by  an  untimely  death,  leaving  a  family 
and  a  church  to  mourn  his  loss.  He  had  just 
received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 
from  Clark  University,  and  this  book  in  manu¬ 
script  form  had  been  accepted  as  his  thesis.  It 
is  now  printed  as  he  intended,  but  by  his  widow, 
and  without  his  final  revision.  Some  fifteen 
years  ago,  when  he  was  a  student  in  Germany, 
the  idea  of  a  psychology  of  Jesus  was  first  sug¬ 
gested  to  his  mind  by  Baldensperger’s  Selbst- 
bewusstsein  Jesu.  It  has  since  grown  with  his 
growth,  and  in  it  are  incorporated  not  only  many 
of  the  best  results  of  an  unusually  rich  pastoral 
life,  but  also  of  diligent  reading  and  study. 

Two  prominent  lines  of  thought  seem  to  have 
dominated  his  work:  first,  the  progressive 
realism  of  how  much  Jesus  owed  to  the  best 
thought  of  his  own  time  and  to  the  teachings  of 
the  Hebrew  schools  of  his  own  century  and  of 
that  immediately  preceding;  and,  secondly,  the 

naturalness  of  Jesus’  life  and  development. 

•  •  • 
xni 


XIV 


INTRODUCTION 


The  one,  while  it  made  Jesus  not  less  sublime, 
showed  him  to  be  less  isolated  and  more  con¬ 
nected  wTith  the  best  tendencies  of  his  own  age 
of  which  he  was  the  culmination.  The  other 
made  him  seem  sane,  normal,  and  less  dependent 
upon  the  supernatural  in  claiming  the  reverence 
of  the  children  of  men.  What  he  did  and  said 
were  all  human,  but  they  were  phenomena  of 
altitude  directly  in  the  line  of  man’s  highest 
development,  only  indefinitely  farther  along  and 
higher  up  than  any  others  had  yet  attained, 
although  not  hopelessly  beyond  the  possibilities 
of  the  higher  superman  that  is  to  be,  if  optimism 
is  true  and  if  evolution  is  to  continue.  The 
supernatural  birth  wTas  an  honor,  a  diploma 
summa  cum  laude  that  his  followers  sometime 
after  his  death  conferred  upon  him,  not  wfith 
deliberate  purpose  but  by  the  deep  instinct  that 
animates  the  folk  soul,  so  that  it  is  to  us  a  precious 
and  standing  memento  of  the  affection  and 
respect  he  inspired  in  those  who  wrought  under 
his  influence  and  in  his  spirit.  So  the  resurrec¬ 
tion,  which  the  author  briefly  treats  in  Chapter  XI, 
was  chiefly  a  psychic  or  spiritual  truth  not  less 
but  more  valid  and  precious  as  a  pledge  of  im¬ 
mortality  than  if  it  were  merely  a  crass  carcous 
reanimation.  So  of  miracles:  “Once  men  be¬ 
lieved  in  Christ  because  they  believed  in 


INTRODUCTION 


xv 


miracles.  Now,  they  believe  the  miracles  because 
they  believe  in  Christ”  (p.  195).  This  too  will 
only  illustrate  the  operations  of  higher  lawTs  of 
the  moral  order  and  are  supernatural,  as  mind 
and  will  are.  “Law  and  not  its  infraction  is  the 
sign  of  God’s  presence,”  even  though  the  law 
may  not  be  known.  He  was  certainly  a  mar¬ 
velous  physician,  using  the  therapeutics  of  his 
age  with  superlative  efficiency.  Our  author  was 
profoundly  impressed,  as  are  a  few  other  of  the 
most  progressive  minds  of  to-day,  with  the  con¬ 
viction  that  the  mind  has  a  vastly  greater  power 
over  the  body  than  the  world  has  ever  yet  be¬ 
lieved  and  that  the  ministrations  of  religion  may 
with  great  propriety  begin  with  hygiene,  bodily 
and  spiritual.  The  historicity  of  the  three  resur¬ 
rections  which  the  Gospels  report  Jesus  to  have 
effected,  the  author  could  possibly  resign  with 
no  sense  of  essential  loss  (pp.  211-13).  The 
temptations  are  veracious  records  of  the  typical 
struggles  of  great  souls  between  selfish  and 
altruistic  plans  of  life.  Love,  service  of  God  and 
man  are  the  substance  of  the  record  of  both 
Jesus’  words  and  deeds.  Old  forms  of  belief 
are  deciduous  and  fall  away  of  themselves  when 
new  and  higher  types  of  faith  and  deeper  in¬ 
sights  arise.  It  is  wTorse  than  folly  to  destroy 
them,  for  the  pedagogy  of  nature  provides  that 


XVI 


INTRODUCTION 


they  shall  quietly  lapse  from  consciousness  when 
higher  principles  appear.  This  book  is  a  wit¬ 
ness  of  the  tendency  now  more  and  more  apparent 
to  get  behind  tradition  and  all  the  records  and 
reconstruct  the  ideal  of  Jesus’  life  and  deeds. 
The  world  needs  and  is  slowly  evolving  a  psy¬ 
chology  of  the  evangelists  and  of  Jesus  himself. 
His  great  achievements  of  conscious  Messianity, 
of  divine  Sonship,  and  of  conceiving  and  found¬ 
ing  a  kingdom  of  God  in  the  world  are  all  in 
accord  with  the  principles  of  a  psychology  vaster 
and  higher  than  any  that  has  yet  been  wrought 
out  or  even  conceived  by  any  of  the  experts  now 
so  very  actively  cultivating  that  department. 
He  is  a  way  more  than  a  goal;  his  method  of  ful¬ 
filling  by  ever  deeper  explanation  rather  than 
by  destroying,  will  make  him  normative  for  the 
world  till  there  is  a  higher  and  stronger  faculty 
in  the  soul  than  love,  a  loftier  object  for  it  to 
cleave  to  than  God,  or  a  nobler  object  to  serve 
than  mankind. 

G.  Stanley  Hall. 

March ,  16,  1908. 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

THE  ENVIRONMENT  OF  JESUS 

CHAPTER 

I  The  Literature  Behind  the  Life  of  Jesus  . 

II  The  Theology  of  the  Jews . 

III  The  World-view:  Jewdsh,  Greek  and  Roman  . 

IV  The  Social  Atmosphere  of  Palestine 

PART  II 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  JESUS 

V  The  Youth  of  Jesus . 

VI  The  Temptation . 

VII  The  Kingdom  of  God,  According  to  Jesus  . 
VIII  The  Messianic  Titles,  as  Jesus  Used  Them  . 

IX  Jesus  as  a  Teacher . 

X  The  Miracles  and  the  Attitude  of  Jesus  Toward 
Them . 

XI  The  Death  and  Resurrection  of  Jesus  as  He  Re¬ 
garded  Them . 

XII  The  Psychological  Approach  to  Jesus 


page 

3 

27 

56 

73 


89 

117 

130 

143 

167 

194 

218 

246 


xvn 


V. 


PART  I 

THE  ENVIRONMENT  OF  JESUS 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  LITERATURE  BEHIND  THE  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

Of  the  two  forces  which  seem  to  determine 
life,  Heredity  and  Environment,  the  latter  may 
be  more  accurately  traced  and  more  exactly  esti¬ 
mated.  No  study  of  the  psychological  develop¬ 
ment  of  Jesus  can  be  undertaken  without  a 
careful  examination  of  the  elements  engaged, 
however  meagerly,  in  the  shaping  of  his  mental  life 
and  the  equipment  of  his  spirit  for  the  work  he 
did.  Atmospheres  are  not  easily  measured,  and 
spiritual  forces  cannot  be  traced  back,  like  streams, 
with  certainty  to  their  sources,  but  no  human 
being  can  exist  in  utter  indifference  to  his  sur¬ 
roundings  nor  be  impervious  to  the  influences 
which  work  upon  him  in  his  youth.  It  cannot  be 
that  Jesus,  so  intensely  human  in  his  make-up, 
so  delicately  poised  and  responsive  as  he  was  in 
the  midst  of  friends  and  foes  alike,  grew  to  man¬ 
hood  without  imbibing  much  from  the  intimate 

3 


4 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


environment  of  his  home,  his  race,  and  the  wider 
social  forces  which  played  upon  him.  We  are 
not  only  warranted,  but  compelled,  to  ask  what 
these  influences  were.  In  the  first  part  of  this 
study  the  task  will  be  to  discover  the  nature  of 
the  mental,  moral,  and  physical  environment  of 
Jesus,  and  to  set  it  forth  accordingly. 

The  Old  Testament  is  the  first  source  of  in¬ 
formation  as  to  the  background  of  the  life  of 
Jesus.  Under  the  devoted  nurture  of  the  scribes, 
the  sacred  books  were  not  only  cherished  but  dis¬ 
cussed  and  commented  upon  in  every  word  and 
letter.  The  Law  in  particular  was  expanded  and 
refined  until  it  was  applied  with  nicest  casuistry 
to  every  possible  event,  and  wherever  it  proved 
inconvenient  as  a  “  regula  fidei,”  it  was  handled 
so  as  to  obviate  difficulties  and  enable  its  devotees 
to  evade  awkward  situations.  The  Hebrew 
Scriptures  were  read  in  every  synagogue,  and 
interpreted  in  the  dialect  of  the  people,  each 
Sabbath  day.  They  were  studied  in  the  schools, 
and  no  books  were  so  familiar  to  the  average 
child  as  these.  The  Old  Testament,  as  arranged 
by  the  scribes,  was  classified  as  Law,  Prophets, 
and  Sacred  Writings,  and  was  given  veneration 
in  that  order  in  a  descending  scale.  The  legal 
traditions,  later  gathered  into  the  Mishna  and 
Talmud,  existed  side  by  side  with  the  Scriptures, 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  5 


as  a  code  of  current  practise.  This  oral  law  was 
called  Halacha,  or  “The  Way”;  and  Hillel  was 
regarded  as  the  first  to  organize  it  into  a  system. 
Haggada,  “utterance,”  or  “narrative,”  was  the 
designation  of  all  non-legal  traditions,  the  free 
and  various  expositions  of  Scripture  which  had  not 
the  authority  of  the  Halacha,  and  had  to  do  with 
thoughts  and  fancies,  not  with  rules  for  conduct. 

There  was  great  literary  activity  among  the 
Jews.  The  Pseudepigraphical  literature  was 
growing  out  of  the  efforts  to  readjust  the  form  of 
Old  Testament  history  to  the  new  conditions  in 
which  the  nation  found  itself  in  religious  matters, 
during  the  last  Jewish  and  the  first  Christian 
century,  and  to  prepare  for  the  future.  Enoch, 
Noah,  Abraham,  Moses,  Elijah,  Solomon,  Isaiah, 
Baruch,  and  Ezra  were  thus  honored  in  being 
made  to  speak  to  the  needy  hearts.  Not  all  of 
these  writings  appeared  under  assumed  names, 
nor  were  they  all  apocalyptic  in  content,  but  they 
shared  these  two  characteristics  quite  generally. 

The  sixteen  Apocryphal  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  similar  to  these  in  their  origin, 
but  different  in  the  style  of  their  composition. 
They  are  in  part  imitations  or  supplements  of 
the  older  books,  rather  than  modern  adaptations; 
in  part  histories  of  their  own  time.  They  form 
a  body  of  national  literature  arising  after  the  age 


6 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


of  canonical  utterance,  and,  like  the  Pseudepi- 
graphs,  some  of  them  pass  under  respected  names 
of  antiquity,  although  the  apocalyptic  element 
is  generally  wanting.  While  they  come  nearer 
to  the  historical  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  they 
lack  the  prophetic  power  that  lifts  to  the  heights 
of  great  Messianic  hopes.  A  German  writer  has 
called  them  the  golden  ring  which  weds  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments. 

The  source  of  the  Apocalyptic  literature  was 
the  Jewish  religious  nature;  and  veneration  for 
the  canonical  Scriptures  determined  the  form. 
The  age  after  the  captivity  was  barren  of  great 
spirits.  Originality  and  inspiration  were  gone. 
“There  is  no  more  any  prophet;  neither  is  there 
among  us  any  that  knoweth  how  long”  (Psalm 
74:  9;  i  Macc.  4:  46;  9:  27;  14:  41).  Good  men 
were  desperate  as  regards  their  day.  Pessimism 
was  the  prevalent  mood.  The  need  of  spiritual 
comfort  and  hope  was  keenly  felt,  but  was  pointed 
backward,  to  what  had  been,  for  its  satisfaction. 
Hence  grew  the  reverence  for  the  words  of  those 
who  had  spoken  as  inspired  by  God,  and  hence 
the  growing  wall  about  the  canon.1  Schools  of 
students  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  began  to 
write  books,  expounding  and  expanding  their 
precious  legacy.  From  the  same  tendency  sprang 
1  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol.,  p.  371. 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  7 


books  which  addressed  the  present  age  as  the 
hero  or  father  whose  name  they  bore  might 
have  spoken,  had  he  been  in  the  writers’  place. 
They  represented  a  transcendent  God  and  a 
people  hopeless  of  better  things  in  the  present, 
but  bound  at  last  to  recover  themselves  and  to 
become  supreme.  When  the  Haggada  drew  out 
into  long  dissertations  the  words  of  Scripture,  or 
turned  them  by  a  quibble  or  an  argument  of 
casuistry,  the  result  was  not  so  different  in  outer 
form  from  the  books  bearing  the  name  of  a 
prophet  or  a  holy  man  in  whose  spirit  they  were 
supposed  to  speak.  There  was  no  hesitancy 
about  issuing  books  under  other  men’s  names, 
for  most  Jewish  writers,  except  the  prophets, 
working  in  honor  of  God  and  the  Church,  wrote 
anonymously,  and  literary  proprietorship  in  the 
modem  sense  was  unknown.  Probably  the  first 
readers  did  not  think  of  the  books  written  under 
the  name  of  Enoch  or  Baruch  or  Ezra  as  actually 
emanating  from  the  worthy  named.  No  thought 
of  deceit  entered,  on  either  side.  As  Dillmann 
observes,  it  was  only  a  step  further  than  the 
classical  authors  went  in  putting  long  speeches 
into  the  mouths  of  their  heroes.  Only  as  time 
passed  and  places  changed  did  there  arise  any 
danger  that  the  assumed  would  be  confused  with 
the  real  utterances  of  the  ancients. 


8 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Since  a  religious  need  called  forth  these  pro¬ 
ductions,  their  chief  motives  are  religious  instruc¬ 
tion,  warning,  encouragement,  and  comfort. 
They  have  been  styled  “  Tracts  for  Bad  Times.” 
The  form  yielded  itself  naturally  to  these  purposes, 
and  furnished  a  starting-point  and  an  aim;  the 
former,  in  the  character  of  the  one  assumed  to 
speak;  the  latter,  in  the  Messianic  hope.  The 
apocalyptic  motif  begins  with  the  Day  of  Jehovah, 
which  was  in  an  earlier  time  the  day  of  conquest 
foretold  of  all  the  prophets,  when  Jehovah 
would  scatter  the  enemies  of  the  nation.  More 
and  more  the  Day  became  a  time  of  vengeance, 
and  only  a  pious  remnant  was  to  escape.  The 
fancy  of  the  apocalyptic  writers  was  set  free  to 
depict,  with  every  embellishment  of  Oriental 
symbolism  run  riot,  the  idea  of  this  awful  Day. 
It  seems,  as  Mathews  suggests,1  as  if  a  people 
forbidden  to  set  forth  their  dreams  in  stone  or 
color  were  driven,  under  tutelage  of  the  familiar 
animal  myths  of  Babylon,  to  paint  in  words  the 
wildest  visions  of  their  fancy.  Under  such  forms 
the  Hope  lived  and  flourished.  Daniel  and 
Revelation  represent  this  literature  in  the  Bible. 

A  chronological  classification  would  be  the 
most  satisfactory  for  our  purpose,  were  it  not 
so  difficult  of  attainment.  Baldensperger  has 
1  The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament. 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  9 


attempted  it,  but  with  much  uncertainty.  Pro¬ 
fessor  Charles  has  done  the  same,  and  his  work 
marks  progress  in  the  study  of  their  contents; 
but  the  careless  handling  of  the  facts  most  sig¬ 
nificant  for  us  by  early  Christian  readers  makes 
it  difficult  to  estimate  the  value  of  these  books, 
and  lessens  the  significance  of  their  dates.1  It 
seems  better  to  present  the  material  in  classes 
according  to  form  of  composition,  and  then  to 
indicate  their  chronological  contribution  to  the 
Messianic  Hope.  They  can  be  arranged  under 
three  divisions :  — 

(1)  Prophetic  matter,  including  Apocalypses 
and  Testaments. 

(2)  Historical  Books,  which  work  over  his¬ 
torical  material,  and 

(3)  Lyrical  and  Oracle  Poems. 

Some  such  division  is  followed  by  both  Dill- 
mann  and  Zoekler. 

The  Apocalypses  are  in  the  style  of  the  old 
Prophets,  from  the  standpoint  of  those  who  held 
prediction  to  be  the  great  and  peculiar  gift  of 
prophets,  and  who  believed  that  to  the  lucky 
solver  of  its  riddles  the  prophetic  Scripture  would 
yield  secrets  of  all  the  future.  Consequently, 
mingled  with  practical  comfort  and  hope,  there 
is  much  that  is  vague  and  mysterious.  A  new 
1  Encyclopedia  Biblia,  Article  Apoc.  Lit. 


10 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


idea  of  God,  the  world  and  human  life  was  born 
in  the  Apocalypse.  Vision  is  the  favorite  vehicle 
to  carry  one  into  the  future  and  onward  to  the 
consummation;  and  so  characteristic  of  the  age 
is  this  tendency  that  it  appears  in  other  than  the 
Apocalyptic  Books. 

1.  Prophetic  Matter.  —  The  largest  and 
most  important  book  of  this  class  is  the  Ethiopic 
Enoch ,  which  includes,  according  to  Dillmann, 
fragments  of  an  Apocalypse  of  Noah.  The  one 
hundred  and  eight  chapters  are  divided  into  sec¬ 
tions  which  betray  widely  differing  dates,  from 
before  170  b.c.  (chaps.  1  to  36),  to  as  late  as 
64  b.c.  (parts  of  37-70). 1 

Enoch  gives  us  the  full  system  of  the  compiler’s 
philosophy,  —  natural,  mental  and  spiritual.  It 
is  a  cycle  rather  than  a  book.  It  treats  of  the 
fall  of  the  angels  and  its  consequences,  narrates 
parables  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  enters 
the  realm  of  astronomy  and  physics,  and  carries 
us  in  vision  to  the  future  consummation,  ending 
with  warnings  of  Enoch,  addressed  to  his  descend¬ 
ants.  The  text  has  been  treated  with  a  free  hand 
by  Christians,  and  is  occasionally  interpolated. 
There  is  an  earnest  Old  Testament  spirit  per¬ 
vading  the  whole,  as  the  thoughts  of  the  Messiah 
and  his  kingdom  and  the  secrets  of  the  seen  and 

1  Charles. 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  11 


the  unseen  world  are  revealed.  The  key-note  is 
judgment.  There  is  close  relationship  to  the 
book  of  Daniel.  The  Son  of  man  is  described 
in  similar  language,  but  here  (chaps.  37-70)  the 
term  is  undoubtedly  applied  to  a  person,  the 
Messiah,  rather  than  to  the  people  of  Israel. 
The  aim  is  particularistic,  —  to  rid  the  readers 
of  personal  faults,  rather  than  national,  like  the 
aim  of  Daniel.  It  is  Pharisaic,  rather  than 
Sadducaic  or  worldly.  The  righteous  and  the 
sinners  are  the  two  classes.  A  union  of  Daniel’s 
metaphysical  picture  and  the  material  promises 
of  the  prophets  is  attempted.  A  new  type  of 
Messiah,  appearing  first  in  judgment  at  the 
consummation,  was  thus  produced.  Preexist¬ 
ent,  as  were  Moses,  the  ceremonial  implements, 
and  the  law,  the  Messiah  is  revealed  to  men 
and  has  power  over  their  fate.  He  is  addressed 
in  prayer.  He  is  called  Son  of  man,  the  Elect, 
the  Anointed,  the  Righteous.  His  principal 
function  is  that  of  Judge;  and  in  the  judgment 
he  is  to  sit  on  the  throne  of  God.  The  resurrec¬ 
tion  and  judgment  are  the  grand  climax  of  all 
things,  a  poetically  conceived  event  falling  be¬ 
tween  the  earth  and  heaven,  between  this 
age  and  the  age  to  come.  The  fate  of  all 
men  is  fixed  at  the  day  of  judgment.  The 
expected  punishment  is  in  quenchless  fire.  Re- 


12 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


wards  are  in  some  parts  of  the  book  purely 
physical,  as  a  life  of  five  hundred  years,  one 
thousand  children,  and  a  peaceful  death  at  last. 
Fields  are  to  be  marvelously  fruitful,  and  joy 
and  gladness  will  reign.  The  heathen  will  be 
converted,  Jerusalem  is  to  be  the  center  of  the 
world,  and  the  empire  of  the  Jewish  king  will 
become  universal.  The  Messiah  in  one  vision 
is  symbolized  as  a  white  bull,  but  he  is  given  no 
duties  of  judge  or  general;  he  merely  receives 
the  kingdom  from  the  hand  of  God  (chaps. 
83-90).  The  whole  collection  lacks  unity. 
There  is  no  one  mastering  idea  in  it.  The  changes 
are  rung  upon  these  four  conceptions:  a 
divine  deliverance,  a  day  of  judgment,  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  wicked  in  fire,  and  resurrection 
of  the  righteous.  There  was  in  part  a  cutting 
loose  from  the  earthly-political  ideal,  to  go  over 
to  the  supernatural.  Yet  by  no  means  was  there 
an  approach  to  the  conception  of  an  inner  spiritual 
kingdom  in  the  hearts  of  men.  Baldensperger 
styles  the  author  “a  Jewish  Dante”;  but  he  was 
without  the  great  Italian’s  genius,  and  devoid 
of  his  inspiration  in  a  nobler  theme.  Professor 
Charles  has  cited  over  one  hundred  passages 
where  he  finds  contact  between  Enoch  and  the 
New  Testament.  Two  of  these  appear  in  the 
Gospels,  where  Jesus  tells  the  Sadducees  that 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  13 


the  angels  do  not  marry,  and  where  the  evil  spirits 
are  represented  as  beseeching  Jesus  not  to  tor¬ 
ment  them  before  their  time. 

The  Assumptio  Mosis  is  an  apocalyptic  bird's- 
eye  view  of  Moses  over  Israel’s  history,”1  and 
some  parts  indicate  the  date  to  be  as  late  as  from 
6  a.d.  to  30  a.d.  It  seems  to  have  emanated  from 
one  devoted  to  the  hope  of  his  nation,  a  Pharisee 
who  protests  against  Sadducees  or  against  Zealots, 
and  it  belongs  to  a  high  spiritual  trend  of  apoca¬ 
lypse.  No  Messiah  is  mentioned,  but  the  ten 
tribes  are  to  return  and  the  theocratic  kingdom 
will  be  set  up.  God  will  punish  his  enemies  in 
Gehenna,  and  the  Remnant  will  be  glorious. 
Under  the  name  of  Moses  many  books  appeared, 
in  both  Jewish  and  Christian  literature. 

Fourth  Ezra  (2  Esdras  3:  14)  is  an  important 
apocalypse  written  perhaps  thirty  years  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  contains  strik¬ 
ing  points  of  likeness  to  St.  Paul  in  regard  to  the 
significance  of  Adam,  the  power  of  sin  in  human 
nature,  and  the  impoteney  of  the  law.  The 
apocalypse  of  Baruch  is  perhaps  a  composite 
work,  written  in  Hebrew  chiefly  about  90  a.d., 
and  comes  to  us  only  in  Syriac.  Schtirer  finds  in 
it  attempt  to  answer  the  question,  “  How  is  the 
calamity  of  Israel  and  the  impunity  of  its  oppres- 

1  Dillmann. 


14 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


sors  possible  and  conceivable  ?  ”  It  treats  of  the 
resurrection  in  a  way  that  calls  to  mind  the  words 
of  St.  Paul  in  1  Corinthians  15. 

Ascensio  Isaice ,  a  composite,  combines  Jewish 
and  Christian  authorship,  and  began  to  appear 
early  in  the  first  Christian  century,  in  Greek. 
The  Visio  Isciioe,  a  Christian  apocalypse  of  the 
end  of  the  century,  represents  Christ  descending 
through  the  seven  heavens  to  liberate  captives 
of  death  in  Hades  and  then  ascending  to  the 
throne  of  God.  It  employs  the  title  “  The  Be¬ 
loved”  of  the  Messiah  as  it  is  used  of  Israel  in 
Deut.  33:  12;  Isa.  44:  2,  etc. 

Of  Testaments,  we  have  still  a  Testamentum 
Duodecim  Patriarchorum ,  written  in  Hebrew  and 
preserved  to  us  in  Greek  and  other  versions. 
It  is  the  work  of  two  or  more  Jews  and  dates 
from  about  130  b.c.  to  the  early  Christian 
decades,  after  which  it  was  fully  and  frequently 
changed  by  additions  and  interpolations  of  a 
Christian  character. 

2.  Historical  Books.  —  Here  we  have  illus¬ 
tration  and  application  of  the  Old  Testament 
historic  narrative  in  various  parts,  with  frequent 
use  of  legends  and  fairy  tales  for  this  purpose. 
Sometimes  exegesis,  and  sometimes  mere  narra¬ 
tive,  affords  the  groundwork.  The  purpose  is 
prophetic,  to  give  comfort  and  hope,  so  that  there 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  15 


is  close  relationship  to  the  apocalypses.  Little 
Genesis  or  Jubilees  is  the  most  interesting  book 
of  this  class,  presenting  in  haggadic  fashion  the 
history  of  the  time  from  creation  to  Moses,  in 
fifty  periods  of  forty-nine  years  each.  It  shows 
a  dependence  upon  Enoch,  and  ignorance  of  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  must  fall  very  near 
or  just  before  the  time  of  Christ.  It  is  the  work 
of  a  Pharisee  in  Palestine.  It  is  anti-Roman, 
and  seeks  to  ground  the  nation’s  cultus  in  the 
earliest  age  of  history.  It  is  of  interest,  as 
Raldensperger  says,  more  because  of  the  pious 
Jewish  outlook  on  the  world  at  the  beginning 
of  our  era  which  it  gives,  than  because  of  specific 
Messianic  expressions.  Ronsch  calls  it  a  “For¬ 
mula  concordise  filiorum  Israel,”  in  a  time  when 
the  temptation  was  strong  to  leave  the  old  faith. 
It  declares  that  God  will  gather  the  people,  build 
among  them  his  sanctuary,  and  dwell  with  them. 

3.  Lyrical  Poems  and  Oracles.  —  The 
Sibylline  Oracles  in  twelve  books  and  fragments, 
probably  of  Alexandrian  origin,  are  of  varying 
age  and  interest.  They  were  compiled  in  the 
sixth  century  and  originally  numbered  fourteen. 
The  third  book,  which  interests  us  most,  is  dated 
from  168  b.c.  to  124  b.c.  and  is  the  work  of  an 
Alexandrian  Jew.  Other  books  date  from  30  to 
200  a.d.,  and  are  mostly  from  Christian  hands. 


16 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


These  Oracles  did  not  have  much  formative  in¬ 
fluence  in  Palestine  at  an  early  date,  because  of 
their  Alexandrian  origin  and  essentially  Greek 
character.  The  work  aimed  to  oppose  the 
Gentiles  rather  than  to  proclaim  the  Messiah. 
The  form  it  assumed  was  popular  among  the 
Romans,  wTho  held  certain  sibylline  oracles  in 
very  high  esteem.  This  fact  gave  unusual  cur¬ 
rency  to  these  books,  and  a  certain  fictitious 
value.  The  most  striking  lines  of  the  Oracles 
are  the  following :  — 

“  kcll  tut  ax'  r/eXloio  0eds  x^p.\f/eL  (3aat,\Tia 
6s  xaaav  yaiau  xavaet.  xoX£p.oio  kcikoio 
60s  p.kv  (Lpa  KTtlva. s  ols  5'  opma  xlcxto.  TeXHaa s. 
otide  ye  Tats  Ibtais  (SovXats  Tabe  xavTa  xoirprei 
aXXa  Qeov  piey&Xoio  xidJjcras  86y p.acnv  taOXoi s.” 

—  Ill,  652-656. 

aijT 7]  yap  p.eyaXoi.o  Qeov  Kplcris  t/88  teal  apx'nP 

—  Ill,  783. 

“And  then  from  heaven  God  shall  send  a  King, 

Who  shall  restrain  all  lands  from  evil  war, 
Destroying  some,  with  others  keeping  oath, 

Nor  of  his  counsel  shall  he  do  all  this, 

Obeying  wise  decrees  of  the  great  God.” 

•  ••••••••• 

“For  this  is  now  God’s  judgment  and  behest.” 

The  Psalter  Solomonis  sprang  from  the  highest 
spiritual  level  of  the  pious  Jew,  and  approaches 
the  spirit  of  the  canonical  Old  Testament  litera- 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  17 


ture  more  closely  than  anything  else  of  that 
period.  Eighteen  in  number,  these  psalms  are 
all  devout  prayers  addressed  to  God  as  the  only 
true  King.  They  are  of  Pharisaic  origin,  and 
it  is  possible  that  they  were  used  in  the  synagogue 
service.  They  bear  certain  marks  which  indicate 
their  origin  as  between  63  and  48  b.c.  In  them 
the  Christian  can  find  true  reverence  and  devo¬ 
tion.  They  reflect  an  unholy  political  usurpation 
on  the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  a  strong  ex¬ 
pression  of  earnest  longing  for  the  kingdom  of 
God  (2:  36;  5:  22;  17:  1,  38).  Fulfilment  of  the 
Messianic  promises  is  expected  (7:  9;  11:  16); 
the  Anointed,  the  promised  Son  of  David,  is 
anticipated  (17:  23;  18:  6)  and  Xparros  is  the  very 
word  employed.  The  tone  of  high  religious  hope 
is  sustained  throughout,  which  fact  led  to  the 
incorporation  of  these  psalms  in  a  few  manu¬ 
scripts  of  the  Greek  Bible.  A  comparison  of 
them  with  the  so-called  Maccabean  Psalms  of 
our  Psalter,  such  as  44,  74,  79,  83,  gives  a  reason 
for  following  Calvin,  Hitzig,  Schiirer  and  others 
in  the  opinion  that  many  psalms  were  written 
in  these  years  of  inter-Testamental  silence,  and 
that  here,  too,  one  might  find  proof  of  the  ten¬ 
dencies  of  the  age  to  turn  from  a  far-off  God  of 
glory  to  a  gracious  God  of  the  Covenant  and  the 
theophanies  of  the  Fathers. 


18 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


In  these  Scriptures,  most  of  them  originating 
before  the  Christian  era,  we  have  an  unconscious 
exhibition  of  the  Jewish  thought  of  the  time  on 
religion.  To  understand  these  books  one  must 
associate  them  with  their  model  and  father,  the 
Book  of  Daniel.  To  understand  that  and  its 
train,  one  must  recall  the  history  of  the  people 
about  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  b.c. 
Successful  for  a  time  in  their  struggles  against 
oppressors,  there  seemed  great  promise  of  a  reali¬ 
zation  of  the  nation’s  hopes,  and  this  literature 
began  as  an  expression  of  them,  but  continued 
even  when  the  struggle  became  desperate. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  only  that  thought 
which  preceded  and  surrounded  Jesus.  The 
best  authorities,  however,  for  his  life  and  thought 
are  his  contemporaries.  But  how  much  have 
they  given  us  of  fact  and  reliable  incident?  The 
Gospels  are  still  under  searching  criticism.  The 
strongest  opponent  to  those  who  reject  the  major 
part  of  the  text  as  unhistorical  and  untrust¬ 
worthy  is  the  character  of  Jesus  himself  which 
the  Gospels  have  pictured.  If  the  early  tradi¬ 
tion  was  now  and  then  in  error,  and  the  writers 
blundered  here  and  there,  they  did  succeed  in 
preserving  for  us  a  most  artistic  result,  and  a 
priceless  treasure.  One  must  admit  the  validity 
of  the  criticism  which  discovers  a  certain  homi- 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  19 


letic  tendency  in  the  Gospels.  Events  are 
applied  and  expanded,  teachings  are  explained 
and  turns  of  expression  or  of  thought  are  given, 
which  the  writers,  however  careful  and  exact, 
would  naturally  adopt  because  they  had  a  per¬ 
sonal  interest  in  what  they  wrote.  Moreover, 
the  oldest  of  the  Gospels,  that  of  Mark,  has  least 
of  this  element,  and  the  latest  of  them,  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  has  most  of  it,  as  one  would  naturally 
expect.  Jesus  was  doubtless  often  misunder¬ 
stood  by  his  hearers,  and  by  those  who  gathered 
and  edited  the  Gospels,  which  were  written  to 
serve  the  practical  purpose  of  awakening  and 
confirming  faith.  Are  they  for  this  reason  less 
exact  as  historical  records,  or  are  they  the  more 
accurate  ?  They  dealt  with  the  inner  life  of 
Jesus  as  the  most  important  matter  in  the  world 
to  the  writers.  This  supreme  interest  ought  to 
have  made  them  more  faithful  witnesses  to  the 
essential  and  spiritual  content  of  the  gospel  they 
cherished.  They  betray  the  Hebrew  mode  of 
thought,  the  Aramaic  dialect,  and  the  atmosphere 
of  Greek  thought  in  part,  through  which  media 
we  look  back  at  the  whole  history  and  the  Person 
who  dominates  it  all. 

A  discerning  and  cultured  English  scholar 
has  lately  written:1  “Whatever  doubt  men  may 

1  From  a  College  Window,  by  A.  C.  Benson,  p.  346. 


20 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


feel  as  to  the  literal  accuracy  of  these  records  in 
matters  of  fact,  however  much  it  may  be  held 
that  the  relation  of  incidents  was  colored  by  the 
popular  belief  of  the  time  in  the  possibility  of 
miraculous  manifestations,  yet  the  words  and 
sayings  of  Christ  emerge  from  the  narrative, 
though  in  places  it  seems  as  though  they  had  been 
imperfectly  apprehended,  as  containing  and  ex¬ 
pressing  thoughts  cpiite  outside  the  range  of  the 
minds  that  recorded  them;  and  thus  possess  an 
authenticity  which  is  confirmed  and  proved  by 
the  immature  mental  grasp  of  those  who  com¬ 
piled  the  records,  in  a  way  in  which  it  would  not 
have  been  proved  if  the  compilers  had  been 
obviously  men  of  mental  acuteness  and  far- 
reaching  philosophical  grasp.” 

Mark  excels  in  vivid  narrative  and  his  Gospel 
is  commonly  thought  to  present  an  orderly 
scheme  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Matthew  reports 
the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  evidently  writes  with 
Jewish  readers  in  mind,  in  part  after  an  Aramaic 
written  tradition.  Luke  comes  next  to  these  in 
time,  and  closely  follows  the  same  tradition,  with 
intent  to  give  a  more  chronological  account.1 
John  belongs  to  the  second  stage  of  thought  and 
interest  concerning  Jesus  and  his  message.  The 
Fourth  Gospel  is  not  to  be  rejected  as  a  witness, 

1  Luke  1 :  1-4. 


LITERATURE  BEHIXD  LIFE  OF  JESUS  21 


but  stands  rather  as  an  interpreter  of  truth  than 
as  an  authority  for  the  “  ipsissima  verba ”  of 
history.  It  does  not  purport  to  be  primarily  a 
historical  work,  but  is  frankly  doctrinal  from  the 

V 

first.  In  general,  reliance  can  be  placed  upon 
the  accuracy  of  Mark,  Matthew,  and  Luke  in 
that  order,  with  added  assurance  through  agree¬ 
ment  among  them. 

Jesus  applies  prophecy  to  himself  only  four 
times,  according  to  the  Gospels.  —  once  in  Mark 
(12:  10,  11),  and  three  times  in  Luke  (4:  18,19; 
20:  17;  22:  37).  He  does  not  plainly  say  in  any 
one  of  these  allusions  that  the  passage,  or  indeed 
any  Old  Testament  prophecy,  had  original 
reference  to  himself.  Dr.  Macfarland  in  his 
recent  book  1  finds  explicit  denial  of  such  use  in 
the  passages  Mark  12 :  36,  37  and  Matthew  11 :  10. 
If  I  fail  to  find  denial  there,  I  fail  also  to  find 
demonstrable  claims  of  prophetic  endorsement 
made  bv  Jesus  for  himself  as  Messiah.  His  use 
of  quotations  seems  rather  to  be  either  on  the 
basis  of  the  scribal  custom,  to  meet  his  hearers’ 
needs,  or  else  as  a  purely  spiritual  assistance  in 
making  an  impression  for  good. 

The  witness  of  other  New  Testament  books 
to  the  thought-forms  of  the  age  and  the  course 
of  events,  especially  the  Acts  and  the  epistles, 
1  Jesus  and  the  Prophets. 


22 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


has  not  been  overlooked.  The  reaction  of  St. 
Paul  against  the  traditional  training  he  had 
received  is  one  of  the  best  expositions  of  the 
theology  of  his  day  and  people. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  print  here  one  of 
the  psalms  of  Solomon,  in  a  translation  from  the 
Greek  which  generally  follows  that  of  Hvle  and 
James,  but  preserves  the  future  tense  of  the 
verbs  where  their  rendering  uses  the  historic 
tenses.  This  psalm  contains  the  fullest  and 
finest  exposition  anywhere  to  be  found  in  Jewish 
writings  of  the  conception  of  the  Messiah  which 
we  may  assume  to  have  been  most  widely  current 
in  the  time  of  Christ. 

Psalm  of  Solomon,  XVII 

1.  O  Lord,  thou  art  our  King,  henceforth  and 
forevermore,  for  in  thee  O  God  our  soul  exulteth. 

2.  And  what  is  the  time  of  man’s  life  upon 
the  earth?  Even  according  to  the  measure  of 
his  time,  so  is  his  hope  in  it. 

3.  But  as  for  us,  wTe  will  hope  in  God,  our 
Saviour,  for  the  might  of  our  God  endureth  for¬ 
ever  with  mercy. 

4.  And  the  kingdom  of  our  God  forever,  over 
nations  in  judgment. 

5.  Thou  O  Lord  didst  choose  David  king 
over  Israel  and  didst  swear  unto  him  concern¬ 
ing  his  seed  forever,  that  his  kingdom  should 
not  fail  before  thee. 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  23 


6.  But  in  our  sins,  sinners  rose  up  against  us; 
they  fell  upon  us  and  thrust  us  out;  they  to  whom 
thou  gavest  no  promise  plundered  us  with  vio¬ 
lence. 

7.  And  they  esteemed  not  thy  glorious  name 
in  praise;  they  set  a  kingdom  above  their  own 
excellence. 

8.  They  laid  waste  the  throne  of  David  in  a 
tumultuous  shout  of  triumph.  But  thou  O  God 
didst  cast  them  down  and  remove  their  seed  from 
the  earth. 

9.  When  there  arose  against  them  a  man  a 
stranger  to  our  race. 

10.  According  to  their  sins  shalt  thou  reward 
them  O  God !  May  it  befall  them  according 
to  their  works. 

•  «•»••••« 

15.  In  that  he  was  an  alien,  the  adversary 
wrought  insolence,  and  his  heart  was  alien  from 
our  God. 

16.  And  all  things  whatsoever  he  did  in  Jeru¬ 
salem,  just  so  the  Gentiles  do  in  their  cities  unto 
their  gods. 

«•••••••• 

18.  They  that  loved  the  assemblies  of  the 
saints  fled  from  them;  they  were  scattered  as 
the  sparrows  from  their  nest. 

•  •••••••• 

20.  Over  all  the  earth  were  they  scattered, 
and  driven  by  lawless  men.  For  the  heaven 
ceased  to  drop  rain  on  the  earth. 

21.  Because  there  was  none  among  them 


24 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


who  did  righteousness  and  judgment,  from  their 
ruler  to  the  least  of  the  people,  they  were  alto¬ 
gether  sinful. 

22.  The  king  was  a  transgressor  and  the  judge 
was  disobedient  and  the  people  were  sinful. 

23.  Behold,  O  Lord,  and  raise  up  unto  them 

their  king,  the  son  of  David  in  the  time  when 

thou  O  God  knowest,  that  he  may  reign  over 

Israel  thv  servant. 

«/ 

24.  And  gird  him  with  strength  that  he  may 
break  in  pieces  them  that  rule  unjustly. 

25.  Purge  Jerusalem  from  the  nations  that 
trample  her  down  in  destruction,  with  wisdom 
and  with  righteousness. 

26.  Thrust  out  the  sinners  from  the  inheri¬ 
tance  to  annihilate  the  haughtiness  of  the  sinful, 
as  a  potter’s  vessel  with  a  rod  of  iron,  to  break 
in  pieces  all  their  substance. 

27.  To  destroy  the  ungodly  nations  with  the 
word  of  his  mouth,  so  that  at  his  rebuke  the 
nations  may  flee  before  him  and  to  convict 
sinners  in  the  word  of  their  heart. 

28.  And  he  shall  gather  together  a  holy  people 
whom  he  shall  lead  in  righteousness;  and  shall 
judge  the  tribes  of  the  people  that  hath  been 
sanctified  by  the  Lord  his  God. 

29.  And  he  shall  not  suffer  iniquity  to  lodge 
in  the  midst  of  them;  and  none  that  knoweth 
evil  shall  dwell  with  them. 

30.  For  he  shall  know  them  well  that  they 
all  are  sons  of  their  God,  and  shall  divide  them 
according  to  their  tribes  upon  the  earth. 

31.  And  the  sojourner  and  the  foreigner  shall 


LITERATURE  BEHIND  LIFE  OF  JESUS  25 


no  more  dwell  with  them.  He  shall  judge  the 
peoples  and  the  nations  in  the  wisdom  of  his 
righteousness.  Selah. 

32.  And  he  shall  possess  the  peoples  of  the 
nations  to  serve  him  beneath  his  yoke;  and  he 
shall  glorify  the  Lord  in  a  place  to  be  seen  of  the 
whole  earth. 

33.  And  he  shall  purge  Jerusalem  in  holiness 
as  in  the  days  of  old. 

\J 

34.  That  the  nations  may  come  from  the 

«/ 

ends  of  the  earth  to  see  his  glory,  bringing  as 
gifts  her  exhausted  sons, 

35.  And  to  see  the  glory  of  the  Lord  where¬ 
with  God  hath  glorified  her.  And  he  shall  be 
a  righteous  king  and  taught  of  God  over  them. 

36.  And  there  shall  be  no  unrighteousness  in 
his  days  in  the  midst  of  them,  for  all  shall  be 
holy  and  their  king  shall  be  the  Lord. 

37.  For  he  shall  not  put  his  trust  in  horse  and 
rider  and  bow,  nor  shall  he  multiply  unto  him¬ 
self  gold  and  silver  for  war,  nor  by  ships  shall  he 
gather  hopes  for  the  day  of  battle. 

38.  The  Lord  himself  is  his  king,  the  hope 
of  him  that  is  strong  in  the  hope  of  God.  And 
he  shall  have  mercy  upon  all  the  nations  before 
him  in  fear. 

39.  For  he  shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  word 
of  his  mouth  forever. 

40.  He  shall  bless  the  people  of  the  Lord 
with  wisdom,  with  gladness. 

41.  And  he  is  pure  from  sin,  to  rule  a  great 
people,  to  rebuke  princes  and  overthrow  sinners 
by  the  might  of  his  word. 


26 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


42.  And  he  shall  not  faint  in  his  days,  resting 
upon  his  God;  for  God  shall  cause  him  to  be  mighty 
with  the  holy  spirit,  and  wise  in  the  counsel  of  un¬ 
derstanding,  with  strength  and  righteousness. 

43.  And  the  blessing  of  the  Lord  is  with  him 
in  strength,  and  his  hope  in  the  Lord  shall  not 
weaken. 

44.  And  who  can  avail  anything  against  him? 
He  is  mighty  in  his  deeds  and  strong  in  the  fear 
of  God, 

45.  Shepherding  the  flock  of  the  Lord  in  faith 
and  righteousness;  and  he  shall  suffer  none 
among  them  to  faint  in  their  pasture. 

46.  In  holiness  shall  he  lead  them  all,  and 
there  shall  be  no  pride  among  them  to  cause 
any  to  be  oppressed. 

47.  This  is  the  majesty  of  the  king  of  Israel, 
which  God  knew  to  elevate  him  over  Israel,  to 
instruct  him. 

48.  His  wmrds  shall  be  purified  above  fine 
gold,  yea  above  the  choicest  gold. 

In  the  congregation  will  he  judge  among  the 
peoples,  the  tribe  of  the  sanctified. 

49.  His  words  shall  be  as  the  words  of  the  holy 
ones  in  the  midst  of  the  sanctified  people. 

50.  Blessed  are  they  coming  into  being  in 
those  days  to  behold  the  good  things  of  Israel 
when  God  shall  bring  to  pass  in  the  gathering 
of  the  tribes  together. 

51.  May  God  hasten  his  mercy  toward  Israel! 

mav  he  deliver  us  from  the  defilement  of  unhal- 

•/ 

lowed  enemies. 

The  Lord  he  is  our  King  forever  and  ever. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 

Whatever  the  facts  may  be  as  to  the  person 
and  the  development  of  Jesus  we  cannot  under¬ 
stand  him  or  his  teachings  until  we  form  some 
conception  of  the  thought-forms  and  instruments 
of  expression  current  in  the  world  into  which  he 
came  and  to  the  use  of  which  he  was  of  necessity 
confined.  An  exhaustive  study  of  Hebrew 
thought  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible  in 
pursuing  the  task  of  this  book.  But  the  Jewish 
theology,  especially  its  Messianic  conceptions, 
in  so  far  as  it  seems  to  condition  at  least  the 
expression,  if  not  the  form,  of  the  Christian  con¬ 
sciousness,  must  be  known  to  the  student  of  the 
mind  of  Christ. 

Two  dominant  principles  controlled  Jewish 
religious  thought  throughout  the  period  forma¬ 
tive  for  the  New  Testament.  They  sprang  from 
the  popular  attitude  toward  the  Law  and  the 
popular  need  of  a  Deliverer;  and  thus  they  repre¬ 
sent  the  ancient  schools  of  the  priests  and  the 
prophets.  A  new  conception  of  God  which 

27 


28 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


governed  the  religious  attitude  of  Judaism  be¬ 
came  almost  universal.  The  emphasis  upon  the 
Law,  itself  springing  from  and  intended  to  carry 
out  the  national  idea  of  God’s  supremacy,  soon 
began  to  draw  attention  to  the  Law  itself  and 
away  from  God.  The  means  superseded  the 
end,  the  channel  the  source.  An  absence  of 
great  spirits  to  inspire  and  point  the  nation  to 
God  as  King,  the  difficulties  and  oppression 
experienced  in  the  State,  the  disheartening  strife 
within  their  own  numbers,  where  the  more 
religious  lost  control  and  the  very  place  and 
instruments  of  worship  were  in  impious  hands, 
resulted  in  a  practical  substitution  of  the  Law 
for  the  living  presence  of  God.1  He  wras  always 
the  Creator,  to  the  Jews.  He  was  ever  exalted. 
But  the  old  prophets  and  poets  of  Israel  had 
brought  him  near,  into  daily  life.  Now  there 
were  no  such  leaders;  their  places  were  filled  by 
the  growing  school  of  scribes,  who  studied  the 
Scriptures  and  extolled  the  Law.  To  them,  too, 
God  was  exalted,  and  because  he  was  so  lofty  in 
his  being  he  was  not  involved  in  the  low  affairs 
of  daily  history  and  life.  He  had  given  to  Israel 

1  “  God  stands  in  connection  with  a  man  in  so  far  as  the 
man  is  in  connection  with  the  Thorah.  This  forms  the  bond 
of  union  between  God  and  men.”  —  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des 
Talmud,  p.  47. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


29 


a  law  by  which  his  will  was  made  manifest. 
That  the  scribes  declared  is  all  they  need.1  Their 
duty  is  to  the  Law,  not  to  God  in  any  personal 
relation,  for  God  is  transcendent.  The  only 
worthy  part  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  Law; 
had  it  not  been  for  sin  the  remainder  had  never 
been  given  to  men.  It  is  a  perfect  revelation  for 
eternity  (Baruch  4:  l).  God  has  fixed  his  will 
for  men  there,  and  to  it  men  must  account.  So 
the  study  of  the  Law  is  man’s  highest  calling. 
God  himself  sits  in  a  white  robe  and  studies  the 
Thorah  many  hours  of  the  day.  Such  a  God, 
unrelated  to  men  save  by  closed  decrees,  cannot 
even  be  named.  He  is  the  Holy,  blessed  be  His 
Name,  the  Place  (B1P9),  the  Eternal.  His 
true  name  is  secret  (Enoch  69:  14  ff.);  it  dare  not 
be  pronounced  by  profane  lips  (Weber,  p.  144; 
Baldensperger,  p.  40). 

Such  an  idea  of  God  must  have  rested  upon 
the  consciences  of  the  people  like  a  constant 
haunting  terror.  The  men  who  made  study  of 
the  Law  were  ever  in  doubt  and  dispute  them¬ 
selves  as  to  when  and  how  the  various  rules  they 
set  in  and  about  it  might  be  broken.  Nothing 
but  uncertainty  could  prevail  as  to  one’s  status 

1  “To  learn  the  Thorah  and  to  fulfill  the  Thorah  are  the 
two  chief  ends  of  life  for  the  pious  Israelite.”  —  Weber,  Die 
Lehren  des  Talmud,  p.  28. 


30 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


before  God.  But  that  condition  was  intolerable. 
There  must  be  some  way  of  approach  to  God. 
There  must  be  an  avenue  of  escape.  It  was 
sought  through  intermediate  beings,  hypostatized 
Wisdom  (Prov.  1:  20  and  8:  Iff.;  Enoch  42:  1, 
6),  Memra,  Metatron,  Schechina,  etc.1  The  aim 
was  “  to  help  the  God  of  Judaism  in  his  need.” 
Because  their  God  was  so  very  far  removed, 
angels  were  brought  in  to  fill  the  space  between 
him  and  his  children  to  whom  he  was  not  a  father. 
So  angelology  flourished  in  high  development 
in  those  days,  as  we  see  in  Daniel,  Enoch  (39 :  12), 
Jubilees,  and  in  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah.2  The 
Apocrypha  and  the  post-exilic  psalms  reveal  the 
same  belief,  and  picture  God  as  acting  through 
his  spiritual  servants.  Paul’s  epistles  bear  traces 
of  this  belief  also  (Gal.  4:  3,  9;  Col.  2:  8,  20.) 
The  second  temple  had  not  the  power  of  the  first 
in  representing  to  the  people  the  dwelling-place 
of  God.  They  no  longer  saw  his  presence  in 
offering  and  sacred  furniture,  and  sought  the 
absent  Deity  in  distant  speculation.  But  this 
was  not  enough.  It  gave  no  escape;  rather  the 
way  was  prolonged  and  the  difficulties  grew  with 
the  distance. 

1  Weber,  p.  172;  Edersheim,  I,  p.  47;  II,  p.  660. 

2  Ezekiel  3:  12,  14;  8:  2  ff.;  11:24;  43:  5;  Zechariah  1:  9, 
13,  14,  19;  2:  3;  4:  1,  etc. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


31 


The  other  principle  underlying  Jewish  religious 
thought  was  the  great  heart-center  of  the  nation’s 
history,  the  Messianic  Hope.  Legalism  and  the 
Hope,  these  controlled  religious  thought  and  life; 
the  one  negative,  the  other  positive;  the  one 
attracting  about  it  the  lawyers  and  theorists, 
the  men  of  influence  and  of  power,  the  other 
strong  in  a  latent  force  among  the  people,  opera¬ 
tive  in  them  because  they  stood  on  Jewish  ground, 
because  they  sought  not  theory  but  life.  But 
how  reconcile  the  two,  the  lofty  God  and  the 
present  Messiah  ? 

There  were  two  wrays :  —  one  in  asserting  the 
medium  of  a  forerunner,  on  the  basis  of  such 
comforting  passages  as  those  in  Malaclii;  the 
other  in  vague  but  splendid  representations  of  a 
new  national  life,  a  judgment,  and  after  that  a 
Messianic  reign,  when  men  shall  have  been  so 
prepared  that  they  can  stand  before  the  Son  of 
God.  One  vray  seemed  more  closely  allied  to 
the  teaching  of  the  prophets  and  looked  for  some¬ 
thing  similar  to  their  wTork.  The  other  took  a 
step  further  and  pictured  in  rich  fancy  the  glory 
and  greatness  of  the  one  coming  on  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  typifying  the  Messiah  who  would 
judge  them  and  all  the  earth,  and  reign  over 
them.  Immortality  was  asserted,  and  hope  thus 
afforded  to  those  wThose  death  prevented  their 


32 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


eyes  from  seeing  that  day.  This  picture  of 
Daniel's  is  taken  up  by  Enoch  and  carried  out; 
the  Son  of  man  becomes  the  Messiah,  not  only 
in  type  but  in  reality,  and  reigns  in  glory  over  all 
true  and  faithful  souls,  alive  or  risen  from  the 
dead. 

The  heavenly  court  of  Daniel  fitted  well  the 
regal  idea  of  God.  And  yet  the  softening  of  the 
prospect  through  the  age  to  come  gave  great 
relief.  Enoch  sought  to  make  this  view  prac¬ 
tical  to  his  readers  by  combining  with  it  the 
promises  of  the  old  Prophets  which  they  craved. 
The  Psalms  of  Solomon  took  their  stand  still 
firmer  upon  the  ground  of  this  expectation. 
Thus  there  was  a  double  line  of  influence  in  the 
age,  —  one  that  of  extreme  legalism,  the  other 
a  revolt  against  it  in  the  popular  heart,  which 
found  expression  here  and  there  in  spiritual 
psalms,  in  apocalypse,  and  even  in  the  restless 
and  impatient  schemes  of  Zealots  and  revolu¬ 
tionists. 

We  must  review  these  ideas  and  others 
which  make  up  the  theology  that  was  current 
when  Jesus  lived,  and  which  must  have  had 
their  influence,  positive  or  negative,  upon  him. 

God  was  so  infinitely  above  the  world  and  so 
ineffably  pure  that  he  held  no  relation  with  the 
creation  save  through  intermediates.  He  dwelt 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


33 


apart  in  a  heaven  of  everlasting  happiness  and 
feasting.  Man  could  win  his  approval  only 
through  the  keeping  of  the  Law,  which  was  the 
revelation  of  his  will.  The  two  most  important 
duties  of  a  religious  man  were,  first  to  preserve 
ceremonial  purity  (John  18:  28;  Matt.  23:  25), 
and  second,  to  observe  all  fasts  and  feasts  and 
ceremonies  prescribed  by  the  Law  or  by  its 
accumulated  tradition.  Not  morals,  but  cere¬ 
monial,  became  the  expression  of  religion.  To 
meet  God  one  must  segregate  himself  from  his 
fellows,  not  deal  lovingly  with  them.  The  man 
who  kept  the  Law  was  pleasing  unto  God,  what¬ 
ever  his  spirit  or  his  conduct  toward  men. 

Angels  were  deputed  to  fill  in  the  vast  chasm 
between  a  God  who  was  too  holy  to  approach 
his  creation  and  his  creatures  on  the  earth. 
The  ancient  polytheistic  and  animistic  beliefs 
in  ministering  spirits  which  serve  God  had  never 
wholly  disappeared  among  the  Jews.  The  He¬ 
brew  word  for  angels  (D’OtfStt,  messengers)  is 
not  their  only  designation;  they  are  elsewhere 
termed  sons  of  God,  gods,  powers,  heroes,  holy 
ones,  and  the  heavenly  host.  They  partake 
of  the  nature  of  fire  (Ps.  104:  4),  and  are  in¬ 
numerable.  ’‘Holy  is  the  Lord  of  spirits,” 
Enoch  says  (39:  12),  ‘Tie  filleth  the  earth  with 
spirits.”  Names  are  assigned  to  various  indi- 


32 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


eyes  from  seeing  that  day.  This  picture  of 
Daniel's  is  taken  up  by  Enoch  and  carried  out; 
the  Son  of  man  becomes  the  Messiah,  not  only 
in  type  but  in  reality,  and  reigns  in  glory  over  all 
true  and  faithful  souls,  alive  or  risen  from  the 
dead. 

The  heavenly  court  of  Daniel  fitted  well  the 
regal  idea  of  God.  And  yet  the  softening  of  the 
prospect  through  the  age  to  come  gave  great 
relief.  Enoch  sought  to  make  this  view  prac¬ 
tical  to  his  readers  by  combining  with  it  the 
promises  of  the  old  Prophets  which  they  craved. 
The  Psalms  of  Solomon  took  their  stand  still 
firmer  upon  the  ground  of  this  expectation. 
Thus  there  was  a  double  line  of  influence  in  the 
age,  —  one  that  of  extreme  legalism,  the  other 
a  revolt  against  it  in  the  popular  heart,  which 
found  expression  here  and  there  in  spiritual 
psalms,  in  apocalypse,  and  even  in  the  restless 
and  impatient  schemes  of  Zealots  and  revolu¬ 
tionists. 

We  must  review  these  ideas  and  others 
which  make  up  the  theology  that  was  current 
when  Jesus  lived,  and  which  must  have  had 
their  influence,  positive  or  negative,  upon  him. 

God  was  so  infinitely  above  the  world  and  so 
ineffably  pure  that  he  held  no  relation  with  the 
creation  save  through  intermediates.  He  dwTelt 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


33 


apart  in  a  heaven  of  everlasting  happiness  and 
feasting.  Man  could  win  his  approval  only 
through  the  keeping  of  the  Law,  which  was  the 
revelation  of  his  will.  The  two  most  important 
duties  of  a  religious  man  were,  first  to  preserve 
ceremonial  purity  (John  18:  28;  Matt.  23:  25), 
and  second,  to  observe  all  fasts  and  feasts  and 
ceremonies  prescribed  by  the  Law  or  by  its 
accumulated  tradition.  Not  morals,  but  cere¬ 
monial,  became  the  expression  of  religion.  To 
meet  God  one  must  segregate  himself  from  his 
fellows,  not  deal  lovingly  with  them.  The  man 
who  kept  the  Law  was  pleasing  unto  God,  what¬ 
ever  his  spirit  or  his  conduct  toward  men. 

Angels  were  deputed  to  fill  in  the  vast  chasm 
between  a  God  who  was  too  holy  to  approach 
his  creation  and  his  creatures  on  the  earth. 
The  ancient  polytheistic  and  animistic  beliefs 
in  ministering  spirits  which  serve  God  had  never 
wholly  disappeared  among  the  Jews.  The  He¬ 
brew  word  for  angels  (CONTIS,  messengers)  is 
not  their  only  designation;  they  are  elsewhere 
termed  sons  of  God,  gods,  powers,  heroes,  holy 
ones,  and  the  heavenly  host.  They  partake 
of  the  nature  of  fire  (Ps.  104:  4),  and  are  in¬ 
numerable.  ‘‘Holy  is  the  Lord  of  spirits,” 
Enoch  says  (39:  12),  “he  filleth  the  earth  with 
spirits.”  Names  are  assigned  to  various  indi- 


V  A 


34 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


viduals  among  them.  Tobit  (12:  15)  mentions 
seven  archangels,  and  Enoch  (20)  names  six: 
Uriel,  Raphael,  Raguel,  Michael,  Saraquael, 
Gabriel;  and  Jeremiel  is  added  in  other  passages. 
Tobit’s  archangels  present  the  prayers  of  the 
saints,  and  go  in  before  the  glory  of  the  Holy  One 
like  the  seven  counselors  of  the  Persian  king. 
There  are  references  to  them  in  1  Thess.  4:  16; 
1  Tim.  5:  21;  Jude  29;  Rev.  4:  5;  8:  2.  Many 
other  names  are  given  here  and  there,  and  ranks 
are  assigned  to  them.  Uriel  (*TiK,  light)  is  the 
regent  of  heaven  and  its  starry  hosts  (Enoch 
20:  2;  33:  3);  Raphael  is  the  angel  of  healing 
(Tobit  3:  17;  Enoch  40:  9);  Michael  is  the  guar¬ 
dian  angel  of  Israel  (Enoch  10:  13,  21);  Gabriel 
is  given  first  place  in  the  Mohammedan  angel- 
ology;  Jeremiel  rules  the  spirits  of  the  dead 
(Enoch  20;  4  Es.  4:  36);  Sandalphon  stood  on 
the  earth,  but  his  head  arose  a  journey  of  five 
hundred  years  beyond  the  living  creatures,  where 
he  made  crowns  for  the  Creator;  Sagsagel  taught 
the  Sacred  Name  to  Moses,  and  beheld  his  death 
on  Nebo. 

These  ranks  and  orders  of  ministering  spirits 
betray  a  Persian  influence.  They  did  the  work 
of  creation;  they  built  the  ark  of  the  covenant; 
they  dwelt  in  all  natural  forces,  thunder  and 
lightning,  storm  and  wind,  and  hail;  in  springs, 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


35 


plants,  animals;  they  gave  the  Law  to  Moses, 
guarded  the  wealth  deposited  in  the  temple,  acted 
as  guardians  of  the  good,  and  carried  their  souls 
at  death  to  Abraham’s  bosom.  New  Testament 
references  to  them  are  fairly  numerous,  but 
do  not  approach  those  of  the  rabbinic  lore 
in  frequency  (Matt.  13:  39  ff. ;  16:  27;  18:  10; 
24:  31;  25:  31;  Mark  8:  38;  12:  25;  13:  32;  Luke 
16:  22). 

Progress  in  the  doctrine  was  rapid,  from  the 
close  of  the  canon  until  the  time  of  Christ.  A 
new  angel  was  said  to  be  created  to  discharge 
every  commandment  of  God.  “  There  is  not  a 
stalk  of  grass  upon  earth,”  said  the  rabbis,  “but 
it  has  its  angel  in  heaven.”  The  four  chief 
angels,  Gabriel,  Raphael,  Michael  and  Uriel 
stood  about  the  throne. 

Evil  spirits  also  existed  for  the  Jew,  in  an 
organized  kingdom  of  darkness,  under  the  reign 
of  Mastenia,  Satan,  Belial,  Beelzebub,  Azazel, 
the  Devil,  the  Tempter,  the  Tormentor,  or  the 
Prince  of  Darkness,  as  their  king  was  called. 
There  are  unnumbered  hosts  prepared  to  do  his 
bidding,  the  “powers  of  the  air,”  the  “powers  of 
darkness.”  They  wander  about,  often  in  dry 
and  desolate  places.  They  cause  disease  like 
rabies,  angina  pectoris,  asthma,  croup,  leprosy, 
and  possess  themselves  of  both  body  and  spirit. 


36 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


They  may  be  exorcised  by  him  to  whom  God 
gives  the  power,  through  the  agencies  of  prayer 
and  touch.  The  origin  of  these  evil  spirits  is 
traced  to  the  union  of  the  sons  of  God  and  the 
daughters  of  men  (Gen.  6).  Physical  evil  crept 
into  the  world  through  these  fallen  angels.  Be¬ 
lief  in  demons  is  older  than  belief  in  the  devil, 
for  it  sprang  from  the  earliest  animism  and  sur¬ 
vived  everywhere  1  in  the  age  of  Jesus,  even  in 
the  Pauline  epistles,  as  well  as  the  Gospels. 

The  hidden  realms  of  beneficent  and  malevo¬ 
lent  beings  all  about  them  gave  the  Jews  a  con¬ 
stant  sense  of  the  supernatural.  It  seemed  to 
be  ever  on  the  point  of  breaking  through  into 
their  own  experience  in  signs  and  miracles. 
Whatever  was  not  understood  was  explained  by 
reference  to  this  mysterious  sphere. 

In  the  Jewish  thought  of  righteousness  a 
national  rather  than  an  individual  asset  was 
postulated.  It  began  in  political  emancipation, 
and  after  that  repentance  was  a  necessary  ele¬ 
ment.  Here,  if  anywhere,  came  in  the  prophetic 
idea  of  the  presence  of  God  and  vital  religious 
feeling.  The  best  of  the  spiritual  leaders  taught 
a  faith  in  the  moral  supremacy  of  God,  subject¬ 
ing  the  world  to  himself,  and  believed  that 

1  Enoch  7:  8;  65:  69;  Jubilees  10:  11;  Josephus  Ant.  VIII, 
46  f.;  War,  VII,  180  f. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


37 


through  the  reign  of  righteousness  blessings  were 
to  come  upon  all. 

Sin  was  recognized,  as  it  always  has  been  by 
religious  minds,  as  the  antithesis  of  the  best, 
against  which  the  soul  must  struggle.  Man  was 
considered  a  free  moral  agent,  but  two  unavoid¬ 
able  sources  of  corruption  lay  deep  within  each 
life.  These  were,  first,  the  body  itself,  which 
was  from  the  ground,  and  essentially  evil;  and 
secondly,  the  historic  and  hereditary  taint  derived 
from  the  Fall.  The  task  of  all  was  to  make 
good  conquer  evil,  through  obedience  to  the  Law 
of  God.  Through  the  Tempter,  man  became 
mortal,  and  since  then  goodness  is  harder  to 
acquire  and  therefore  more  meritorious.  Guilt, 
but  not  sin,  is  handed  down  from  father  to 
son. 

The  Talmud  teaches  that  some  men  are  sin¬ 
less,  even  after  the  Fall,  because  they  keep  the 
whole  Law.  A  child  cannot  sin.  Sin  is  univer¬ 
sal  only  in  the  sense  that  all  men  are  potentially 
under  evil  influence.  Physical  evil  is  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  sin.  Death  is  the  result  of  the  Fall, 
though  it  is  sometimes  referred  to  natural  causes, 
or  even  to  foreordination.  The  soul  is  pre¬ 
existent,  as  all  good  things  are  in  Jewish  thought. 
It  is  compelled  to  enter  the  body,  even  against 
its  will.  At  death  the  soul  will  return  to  the 


38 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


upper  world.  It  should  therefore  be  kept  pure, 
if  possible,  in  the  body. 

According  to  the  Midrash  Tanchuma,  seven 
things  existed  before  the  world  wTas :  —  the  throne 
of  God,  the  law,  the  temple,  the  patriarchs, 
Israel,  the  name  of  Messiah,  and  repentance. 
Sometimes  paradise  and  hell  are  added;  some¬ 
times  they  are  substituted  for  the  patriarchs  and 
Israel  in  the  list.  Elsewhere  these  are  spoken  of 
not  as  preexisting,  but  merely  as  prearranged. 

Immortality  was  not  by  any  means  the  univer¬ 
sal  faith  of  the  Jews.  As  the  Old  Testament  in 
many  places  fails  to  declare  definitely  for  any¬ 
thing  more  than  a  sort  of  unconscious,  pallid  life 
beyond  the  grave,  and  gives  us  no  settled  doctrine 
of  the  future  of  the  soul,  so  the  Jews  lacked  a 
fixed  eschatology.  Some  held  to  a  transcendental 
view  of  the  coming  Kingdom,  and  a  resurrection 
of  the  dead  to  participate  in  it;  others  denied 
both  articles  of  belief.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Hellenistic  ideas  of  immortality,  based  in  phil¬ 
osophy,  attained  considerable  influence.  Thus 
there  were  three  tendencies  in  respect  to  immor¬ 
tality  :  —  that  which  followed  the  book  of  Daniel, 
connecting  the  new  faith  with  the  future  King¬ 
dom;  that  which  fell  under  Greek  philosophical 
influence,  coming  in  upon  the  Jews  from  Alex¬ 
andria;  and  that  which  pinned  its  faith  to  the 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


39 


earthly  kingdom  and  denied  both  immortality 
and  resurrection. 

The  Kingdom  was  the  central  and  common 
factor  in  all  shades  of  belief.  Israel,  to  all  the 
Jews,  was  itself  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He  had 
chosen  the  nation,  as  the  prophets  taught.  He 
had  covenanted  with  them.  The  sufferings  of 
past  years  and  centuries  was  the  discipline  from 
which  should  emerge  a  nation  purified  and  fit 
to  be  the  people  of  God.  Their  loss  of  inde¬ 
pendence  was  a  great  strain  upon  this  faith,  and 
the  rise  of  the  world-powers  around  them  dazed 
and  discouraged  them.  But  their  thought  was 
enlarged  and  deepened.  They  held  fast  to  this 
ancestral  faith,  and  persisted  in  expecting  a  re¬ 
establishment  of  a  dynasty  and  a  power  on  the 
earth  all  their  own.  At  present  they  could  only 
dream;  for  the  future  there  was  hope. 

They  made  a  sharp  distinction  between  present 
and  future,  earth  and  heaven.  God  is  there, 
not  here,  and  his  place  on  earth  has  been  usurped. 
The  lower  Israel  sank  in  the  scale,  the  keener 
was  this  distinction  made.  No  gradual  change 
could  ever  bring  things  out  as  they  should  be, 
but  sudden  cataclysms  must  occur  to  set  things 
right.  God  alone  can  restore  the  Kingdom  to 
Israel  in  his  good  time.  The  only  thing  a  man 
can  do  is  to  practise  righteousness  and  keep  the 


40 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Law  assiduously.  He  can  help  things  along  by 
repentance  for  past  and  present  lapses  and  trans¬ 
gressions,  but  into  the  midst  of  the  saddest  moral 
degradation  the  powers  of  heaven  must  come  to 
bring  the  Kingdom  in. 

This  expected  triumph  of  the  Jews  involved 
an  earthly  realm,  to  be  world-wide  in  its  extent, 
and  promised  all  earthly  bliss  for  the  faithful, 
but  punishment  and  desolation  unspeakable  for 
the  unfaithful  Israelite  as  for  the  nations  in  their 
pride.  It  had  a  decided  tinge  of  vengeance  in 
it,  often  luridly  portrayed.  Since  it  was  to  come 
from  heaven,1  where  in  one  sense  it  already 
existed,  the  popular  phrase  was  “The  kingdom 
of  heaven”  rather  than  “The  kingdom  of  God.” 
Political  and  religious  hopes  were  merged  in¬ 
extricably. 

This  tendency  of  thought  prepared  the  Jew 
for  the  Greek  transcendentalism  of  Alexandria. 
The  Hebrew  mind  traveled  from  the  thought 
of  a  divine  revelation  to  which  it  always  clung, 
downward  toward  earth,  which  it  found  so 
hostile  to  God  and  all  goodness,  and  asked  an 
explanation  of  matter  and  life.  The  Greek  mind 

1  The  origin  of  the  phrase  “  kingdom  of  heaven  ”  is  probably 
not  in  the  apocalyptic  localizing  of  the  kingdom  directly,  but, 
as  Schiirer  points  out,  in  the  use  of  heaven  for  God,  according 
to  Jewish  veneration  for  the  name.  Note  this  practise  in 
Daniel  and  1  Maccabees. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


41 


reversed  the  process,  seeking  for  divine  revelation 
as  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  human  thinking 
which  it  did  not  trust.  Instead  of  endless 
speculation,  the  Greek  demanded  an  immediate 
knowledge,  through  vision  or  ecstasy.  The  conse¬ 
quent  transcendentalism  led  to  essential  dualism. 
Matter  and  spirit  took  their  places  over  against 
each  other.  Matter  was  the  eternally  formless 
stuff  from  which  God  made  the  world.  It  was 
the  source  of  evil,  as  the  Persians  taught.  Sal¬ 
vation  was  sought  through  knowledge,  by  which 
they  meant  a  mystical  vision  and  spiritual 
sympathy.  Ignorance  thus,  as  well  as  matter,  be¬ 
comes  a  source  of  sin.  Thus  a  more  individual¬ 
istic  movement  began  under  Greek  influences 
than  was  possible  in  the  stiff  nationalism  of  the 
Palestinian  faith.  But  even  then  no  man  was 
sure  of  the  favor  of  God  save  by  his  doing 
prescribed  things,  and  no  man  ever  knew  exactly 
where  he  stood  in  the  reckoning.  Pride  and 
grave  uncertainty  went  hand  in  hand.  Contrary 
to  the  rabbis,  these  new  teachers  held  that  man 
is  by  nature  sinful,  and  did  not  rest  back  upon 
the  Fall  in  accounting  for  sin.  They  imputed 
free  will  to  the  soul,  and  taught  that  this  choice 
was  exercised  even  when  the  soul  came  into  the 
body  it  was  to  inhabit. 

The  most  significant  doctrine  for  us  in  ap- 


42 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


proaeking  the  study  of  the  spiritual  development 
of  Jesus  is  that  of  the  Messiah.  It  might  be 
treated  as  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom, 
with  which  it  is  indivisibly  united,  but  it  has 
secured  a  field  and  form  of  expression  all  its  own. 
In  New  Testament  times  it  was  developing 
rapidly,  both  generally  and  in  definite  content. 
It  was  the  abiding  kernel  of  the  Hope  which  had 
warmed  the  hearts  of  a  discouraged  and  well- 
nigh  desperate  people  for  four  hundred  years. 

Utopias  are  always  interesting,  and  a  natural 
history  of  the  Utopias  of  literature  would  be  a 
readable  book.  These  dreams  of  ideal  condi¬ 
tions  are  born  not  in  times  of  plenty  and  pros¬ 
perity  like  our  own,  but  under  the  pinch  of  want, 
or  in  the  woes  of  oppression.  When  people 
cannot  get  what  they  need,  when  their  state  is 
impoverished  and  their  liberties  are  curtailed, 
thev  resort  to  dreams,  and  imagination  builds 
them  houses  for  a  season.  Thus  Plato’s  Republic, 
More’s  Utopia,  and  Bacon’s  Atlantis  sprang  into 
being.  The  eternal  Hope  of  Israel  produced  its 
fairest  flowers  when  the  nation  suffered  most 
and  the  need  was  greatest  for  the  comfort  and 
reenforcement  of  the  individual  soul.  Thus, 
too,  it  chances  that  with  dreams  of  their  own 
betterment  join  visions  of  a  vengeance  upon  their 
foes  which  is  almost  as  sweet  to  them  as  their 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


43 


joy,  by  the  satisfaction  of  the  sense  of  justice 
which  it  brings.  Many  a  helpful  and  uplifting 
psalm  is  spoiled  for  us  by  this  fly  in  its  precious 
ointment,  and  the  vindictive,  even  brutal  words 
seem  foreign  to  the  noble  spirit  that  appeals  to 
our  religious  sense.  Yet  both  parts  belong  to 
the  people  who  produced  these  psalms,  and  both 
elements  have  a  place  as  obverse  and  reverse  in 
the  Messianic  Hope  of  the  Jews.  On  the  one 
side  vengeance  is  assured  upon  their  enemies; 
on  the  other  the  nation  is  to  be  supreme. 

The  Jews,  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  were  con¬ 
trolled  largely  in  their  Messianic  expectation  by 
what  they  had  inherited.  The  mediate  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  the  first  temple  had  been  over¬ 
shadowed  and  displaced  in  the  hands  of  its 
mediators,  their  fathers,  so  that  the  life  of  it  was 
gone.  A  spiritless  age,  when  no  prophet  appeared, 
led  to  writing  in  the  name  and  after  the  method 
of  the  older  prophets,  by  men  who  felt  within 
them  conviction  of  truth,  or  longing  to  comfort 
the  dejected.  Another  development  was  seen 
in  scribism,  from  the  time  of  Ezra  on.  He  was 
both  priest  and  scribe.  Gradually,  the  subject 
of  the  Law  and  its  teaching  became  the  possession 
of  a  class  of  learned  scholars  who  held  no  priestly 
office.  They  assumed  or  won  a  place  of  author¬ 
ity  in  all  questions  of  interpretation,  and  in  their 


44 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


zeal  at  protecting  and  applying  the  Law  they 
magnified  it  as  the  only  hope  of  the  nation.  So 
the  class  called  D^jpiD,  ypa/x/xareTs,  vo/ukol,  vofxoSi- 
SacrKaAoi,  arose,  winning  highest  respect  of  the 
people,  and  the  title,  later  in  our  New  Testament 
age,  of  *0“! .  These  men  were  zealous  Israelites, 
and  naturally  shaped  the  religious  life  of  the 
people.  By  choice  most  of  them  were  Pharisees. 
For  the  laity,  for  the  priest,  the  sacred  Book  and 
the  sacred  Letter  became  ever  more  uniquely 
authoritative.1  “Ethic  and  Theology  were  swal¬ 
lowed  up  in  Jurisprudence.”2 

After  two  centuries  of  effort  to  attenuate  per¬ 
sonal  faith  and  to  translate  the  spiritual  into 
legalism,  we  cannot  expect  to  find  the  purest  and 
the  best  spirit  of  the  Davidic  Psalms,  combined 
with  the  noblest  product  of  later  prophecy,  in 
the  popular  conception  of  the  time  of  Christ. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  equally  an  error  to  deny 
all  expectation  of  a  personal  Messiah.  The 
books  that  were  then  popular  combine  the  wheat 
and  the  chaff,  and  we  cannot  be  untrue  to  his¬ 
tory,  as  it  is  surely  not  untrue  to  human  nature, 
if  we  claim  that  the  craving  for  the  living  truth 
made  them  read  and  treasure  these  books.  The 
general  idea  of  God  was  a  colorless  one.  He 


1  Ewald  in  Schultz. 


2  Schiirer. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


45 


was  cold,  unmindful,  pitiless.  But  the  very  per¬ 
fection  of  the  transcendental  led  to  the  union 
with  it  of  something  else  by  the  people.  It  must 
always  be  so.  The  Huguenots  in  a  godless  land 
and  even  at  the  licentious  court  of  the  Regent 
Duke  of  Orleans;  the  Puritans  by  the  side  of  the 
Cavaliers  of  Charles  I;  John  Wesley’s  protest 
against  dead  dogmatism  and  proclamation  of 
free  grace;  to  say  nothing  of  the  brightness  in 
the  “  Dark  Ages  ”  kindled  bv  the  Orders  which 
had  lighted  their  torches  at  the  altar  of  God’s 
love,  —  every  new  start  in  the  progress  of  re¬ 
ligion  and  of  truth  can  be  seen  to  develop  from 
darkness  and  opposition.  So  the  fact  of  spirit¬ 
ual  life  among  the  Jews  (proved  by  such  writings 
as  we  have  cited,  climaxed  in  the  Psalms  of 
Solomon)  necessitates  an  expression  of  itself 
somewhere  among  the  people  whose  history  had 
always  been  governed  by  “  one  far-off,  divine 
event”  looked  for  through  the  ages.  It  is  im¬ 
possible  to  conceive  of  all  Messianic  expectation 
as  having  died  out  among  them.  “  It  was  by 
no  means  a  religiously  torpid  age;  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  a 
well-defined  feeling  of  discontentment  in  the 
best  minds;  —  a  desire  for  something  purer  and 
higher  than  had  yet  been  attained.”1  At  the 

1  Toy,  p.  417. 


46 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


same  time  it  is  equally  impossible  that  the  hope 
they  entertain  could  be  free  from  the  manv  de- 
fects  and  formative  influences  of  their  national 
and  personal  training. 

The  Law  had  usurped  the  place  of  sacrifice, 
of  temple  and  of  God  to  such  a  degree  that  it 
dominated  the  religion  of  the  dav  in  manv  minds. 
God  was  represented  by  it.  The  temple,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Talmud  (Jer.  Taanith  65),  did  not 
contain  many  things  that  the  tabernacle  and 
Solomon’s  temple  held.  Among  the  missing  was 
the  Holy  Spirit,  even  in  the  gorgeous  building 

of  Herod.  At  least  they  were  not  sure  of  God’s 

*/ 

presence  in  the  temple  (Enoch  89:  73;  Psalms 

of  Solomon  1:  8;  2:  3;  8:  12,  26).  Josephus 

(Ant.  iii,  8,  9)  declares  that  the  stones  in  the 

high  priest’s  breastplate  ceased  to  shine  during 

his  official  sendees  about  100  b.c.  Yet  the 

temple  was  by  no  means  forsaken.  The  warm 

spiritual  piety  of  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets 

never  wholly  forsook  it.  It  was  “his  Father’s 
*/ 

House  ”  to  the  ideal  Jewish  youth.  Twenty- 

%J  V 

nine  years  later,  the  popular  reverence  for  it  was 
great  enough  to  make  an  accusation  of  threatening 
to  destroy  it  a  charge  sufficiently  grave  to  justify 
sentence  of  death.  And  ten  years  later  still,  a 
mass  of  people  of  all  ages  fairly  besieged  the 
Governor  Petronius  for  forty  days,  petitioning 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  TELE  JEWS 


47 


him  not  to  desecrate  the  sacred  building  with 
the  statue  of  Caligula  the  emperor. 

The  oldest  Rabbinical  books  set  the  Thorah  at 
a  higher  worth  than  this  temple.  And  the 
multiplication  of  synagogues  proves  the  tendency 
among  leaders  to  substitute  for  the  centralized 
system  a  dependence  on  the  Thorah;  for  worship, 
moral  observance:  for  the  eultus,  faithful  study 
of  the  scribal  deliverances  and  interpretations. 
Essenism,  in  its  revolt  against  the  temple  sacri¬ 
fices  and  ritual,  was  only  a  symptom  of  wide¬ 
spread  discontent.  Hellenism  had  come  into 
the  nation  with  its  philosophy,  and  Rome  with 
its  idolatry  and  power.  The  former  brought 
assurances  of  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  latter 
drove  the  Jew  further  on  in  his  conception  of  the 
exaltation  of  Jahveh.  The  Pharisee  was  the 
only  faithful  follower  of  Law  and  God,  and  of 
a  hope  which  made  a  resurrection  possible  and 
assured  him  of  a  new  age  and  a  Kingdom  to  come, 
because  it  was  written  in  the  book  in  heaven. 
All  history  is  but  an  unfolding  of  what  God  has 
fixed  there  (Daniel  10:  21;  12:  1;  Enoch  39:  2; 
81:  1). 

This  religious  hope  called  for  those  things 
which  the  present  denied  to  the  religious  nature. 
They  mav  be  gathered  about  two  centers :  — 

(1)  God’s  presence,  on  earth,  in  wisdom,  in 


48 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


the  temple,  in  communion  with  men,  in  his 
Son. 

(2)  The  Kingdom  of  God,  in  his  Son,  in  know¬ 
ing  him  here,  in  judgment,  in  the  teleology  of  a 
Messianic  age. 

Herod  the  king  was  troubled  at  the  birth  of 
one  expected  by  Wise-men,  and  chief  priests  and 
scribes  could  tell  him,  in  the  wisdom  of  their  lore, 
where  the  Anointed  should  be  born.  An  aged 
Simeon  and  Anna  in  the  temple  were  waiting 
for  the  consolation  of  Israel,  with  an  audience 
of  “  all  them  that  were  looking  for  the  redemption 
of  Jerusalem,”  to  whom  to  speak  of  the  ‘Tight 
for  the  unveiling  of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of 
thy  people  Israel.”  The  same  expectation  is 
found  in  the  preaching  of  John,  whose  disap¬ 
pointment  in  a  course  of  action  so  un-Messianic 
as  was  Jesus’  life  speaks  plainly  of  the  character 
of  his  hope.  The  anxious  mother  would  never 
have  brought  her  sons  to  ask  for  them  places  in 
the  Master’s  kingdom,  if  she  had  not  had  natural 
and  definite  ideas  as  to  that  which  she  asked, 
gained  from  other  sources  than  her  sons’  accounts 
of  the  Master’s  teaching. 

But  we  have  other  proofs  in  the  rising  of 
Theudas  the  enthusiast  and  of  Judas  of  Galilee, 
mentioned  by  the  Pharisee  Gamaliel  (Acts 
5:  33  ff.)  and  by  Josephus  as  well.  From  pa- 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


49 


triotic  Galilee  some  had  gone  forth,  earnest  men, 
lovers  of  country,  feeling  that  the  time  had  come 
for  throwing  off  the  foreign  yoke.  The  pro¬ 
phetic  great  sorrow  and  tribulation  seemed  to 
many  a  heart  to  have  been  upon  them,  and  the 
onlv  reason  for  delay  in  bringing;  out  the  concealed 
Messiah  seemed  the  inactivity  of  the  people. 
A  personal  Messiah  was  expected.  Josephus 
assigns  the  title  to  Vespasian,  in  his  double 
oracle.  Herod  thought  to  win  the  Messiah’s 
crown  by  building  the  temple,  as  the  prophecies 
of  Zeehariah  suggest  that  the  temple-builder 
will  be  the  nation’s  deliverer.  One  cannot  fail 
to  endorse  the  opinion  of  Hausrath,  that  this 
expectation  of  a  personal  Messiah  is  the  basis  of 
the  presentation  of  the  New  Testament  history.1 
(Matt.  11:  2;  17:  10;  27:  11;  Luke  2:  25-38; 
Matt.  15:  22;  Luke  24:  2-7;  compare  Acts  1:6; 
Luke  3:  15).  s*  It  is  not  a  wonder,”  says  Haus¬ 
rath  (p.  184),  “  that  Jesus  came  as  Messiah,  but 
that  he  came  just  now.” 

The  conception  of  a  personal  Messiah  was, 
in  some  respects,  the  hardest  one  for  the  age. 
It  was  in  things  and  states,  not  in  personal  repre¬ 
sentation  of  God  as  King,  that  the  main  hope 
lay.  So  the  conception  of  a  Forerunner  was 
frequent,  from  Malachi  (3:  1-5)  to  Siraeh  (48:  9  ff.) 

1  Hausrath,  I,  p.  181. 


50 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


and  1  Maccabees  (45:  46;  14:  41),  to  which  the 
apocalyptic  representation  in  Daniel  fitted  ad¬ 
mirably.  But  the  correlation  of  Forerunner  and 
Messiah  was  rarely  if  ever  completed  in  one 
mind.  Some  held  to  the  one,  some  to  the  other. 
Even  in  Samaria  there  was  religious  excitement 
under  a  certain  Goet  (Josephus  xviii,  4,  l),  at 
about  the  time  of  the  preaching  of  John  the 
Baptist  (compare  2  Macc.  2:  4-8,  where  such 
activity  as  Goet’s  in  restoring  old  relics  is  assigned 
to  the  Messiah).  John  the  Baptist  carried  the 
teaching  of  Enoch  and  the  schools  of  the  scribes 
into  action.  Leaving  promises,  he  laid  founda¬ 
tions  for  the  Kingdom,  and  offered  a  definite 
outlet  for  the  faith  of  the  age.  The  Kingdom 
ceased  to  be  a  matter  of  distant  visions,  and  be¬ 
came  a  near  and  present  reality.  The  Samari¬ 
tans  confused  the  Kingdom  with  the  restoration 
of  physical  conditions;  the  Jews  still  expected 
to  use  force  of  arms;  John  alone  taught  a  King¬ 
dom  of  ethical  fitness  and  spiritual  renewal. 
A  saying  of  the  schools,  possibly  after  Christ, 
but  normative  of  the  thought,  ran  as  follows: 
“  If  all  Israel  would  together  repent  for  a  single 
day,  the  redemption  by  Messiah  would  ensue.” 

There  was  a  section  of  the  more  seriously  minded 

%/ 

among  the  people  who  looked  for  a  Messiah  of 
superhuman  nature,  but  even  they  expected  that 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


51 


he  would  use  his  divine  powers  to  overthrow 
the  Roman  might  and  establish  a  kingdom  on 
earth. 

Wendt 1  has  analyzed  the  Hope  into  three 
separate  phases :  expectation  of  a  Messianic 
King;  a  conception  of  the  personal  salvation  of 
individual  pious  men;  and  an  emphasis  upon  the 
ethico-religious  character  of  the  expected  con¬ 
dition  of  salvation.  Zockler  affirms  that  the 
Messianic  was  bounded  by  a  narrow  circle  among 
the  people,  that  with  the  masses  it  was  a  side 
issue,  or  latent.  One  can  readily  grant  his 
assertion,  but  at  the  same  time  add  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  it  was  latent  as  the  magnetism  of  the 
magnet  is  latent,  only  waiting  for  an  exciting 
cause  to  respond.  “  This  ardent  hope  with  re¬ 
spect  to  the  nation,  which  existed  in  all  true 
Jewish  hearts,  was  directed  into  a  more  definite 
channel  when  they  believed  in  a  Messiah,  and 
all  the  beliefs  involved  in  or  suggested  by  the 
vaguer  hope  naturally  came  to  be  connected 
more  or  less  directly  with  the  Messiah  and  his 
time.  They  may  thus,  not  unfitly,  themselves 
be  called  Messianic.  The  figure  of  the  Messiah 
looms  on  the  view  of  the  Jewish  people,  gradually 
gathering  more  and  more  distinctness,  against 
the  background  of  such  anticipations  as  these.”2 

1  Inhalt  der  Lehre  Jesus,  II,  132.  2  Stanton. 


52 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


The  old  prophetic  expectation  was  treated 
much  as  the  later  Catholic  Church  treated  the 
eliiliasm  of  the  apostolic  eschatological  expecta¬ 
tion;  yet  there  was  an  earnest  inner  looking  for 
relief  of  heart  and  life,  just  as  there  has  always 
been  an  optimism  in  the  Christian  Church  that 
looks  for  ultimate  conquest  by  the  life-power  of 
Christ. 

Our  analysis  of  the  Hope  of  the  age  results  in 
the  emphasis  of  two  elements  of  power,  —  a 
national  and  a  personal.  The  national  element 
was  dim,  far  off,  general  in  its  form,  of  many 
phases;  and  through  long  postponement  of  its 
satisfaction  had  developed  into  the  vagueness  of 
apocalyptic  visions.  Yet  there  was  earnestness 
and  reality  in  it,  for  in  time  of  greatest  oppression 
it  grew  brightest  and  found  more  frequent 
expression.  Historically,  it  was  a  continuation 
of  the  promises  of  the  prophets. 

It  is  also  evident,  alike  in  the  apocalyptic 
literature  and  in  the  New  Testament,  that  there 
was  a  more  personal,  religious,  ethical  side  to  the 
Hope  of  the  Jews.  The  long  waiting  and  the 
fearful  suffering  had  operated  to  focus  in  a 
Deliverer  the  religious  faith  of  many.  How 
could  the  Jews  of  the  second  Christian  century 
have  come  into  possession  of  such  a  strong  and 
definite  personal  hope,  if  they  had  not  received 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


53 


it,  at  least  in  germ,  from  their  predecessors  of  the 
time  of  Christ? 

This  purely  personal  element  was  a  reaction 
against  the  legalism  of  the  scribes  and  its  en¬ 
tailed  notions  of  God  and  of  the  relation  of  man 
to  him.  It  grew  and  found  force  among  the 
people,  fed  on  the  Psalms,  on  the  Prophets,  and 
on  all  elements  of  religious  hope  which  came  to 
it,  whether  from  Semite  or  from  Greek.  It 
sought  an  avenue  to  God,  a  representative  of 
him,  a  communion  with  him.  It  found  utter¬ 
ance  in  the  Maccabean  Psalms  of  our  canon, 
in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  and  in  the  restless, 
crying  needs  of  the  people  seeking  John  and 
Jesus. 

To  sum  up  the  Messianic  doctrine  briefly,  its 
chief  points  were  these:  The  present  is  a  time 
of  evil,  for  Satan  rules,  and  we  must  suffer  pain, 
disease,  and  death  at  his  hands.  Judgment  will 
surely  come,  when  the  enemies  of  Israel  will  all 
be  punished.  The  Gentiles  will  be  extinguished 
utterly,  or  at  least  subdued.  Then  the  age  of 
joy  and  gladness  will  come  in,  the  gift  of  God 
through  that  great  catastrophe  by  which  God 
will  ascend  his  throne  of  judgment.  The  new 
kingdom  then  will  appear,  the  Kingdom  of 
heaven.  It  is  limited  by  some  writers  to  four 
hundred  years,  by  others  one  thousand  years, 


54 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


until  God  assumes  the  rule  of  all  men.  The 
righteous,  it  was  generally  believed,  would  rise 
from  the  dead  and  enter  into  the  joys  of  this 
Jewish  kingdom  on  the  earth.  The  transition 
to  the  new  age  was  to  be  with  fearful  birth-pangs. 
Usually  a  personal  Messiah  was  expected,  al¬ 
though  mention  of  him  is  often  obscure.  He  was 
to  be  especially  set  apart,  and  was  even  super¬ 
natural  in  character.  Here  and  there  the  com¬ 
ing  of  Elijah  as  his  forerunner  was  proclaimed. 
Justin  Martvr  alludes  to  a  tradition  that  the 
Messiah  would  not  know  his  own  mission,  as 
Saul  and  David  did  not  know  theirs,  until  he  was 
anointed  by  Elijah.1  He  was  to  be  hidden  until 
suddenly  revealed  by  Elijah.  An  ideal  man,  a 
prophet,  he  was  to  be  sinless  and  pure.  Thus 
the  two  ages,  this,  and  the  age  to  come,  were  dis¬ 
tinguished  in  the  program  of  the  theologians; 
and  the  hardships  of  the  present  were  resolved 
in  the  glory  of  the  prospect  set  before  the  pious 
souls. 

Judaism  as  it  ebbed  away  in  its  latter  days  and 
evaporated  under  the  hot  sun  of  oppression,  de¬ 
feat,  and  its  own  zealous  legalism,  left  a  residuum 
of  real  value,  which  indeed  was  destined  to  pro¬ 
vide  Christianity  with  its  richest  treasure.  This 
legacy  was  provided  under  three  fundamental 
1  Dialogue  c.  Trypho.,  Sec.  8. 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  JEWS 


55 


forms  of  thought:  First,  the  Hebrew  system 
gave  us  a  settled  idea  of  God  the  Creator,  behind 
and  beneath  all  things,  a  sovereign  power. 
Secondly,  we  have  received  from  this  source  a 
system  of  morals  which,  if  it  was  negative,  was 
strict,  and  if  it  insisted  too  strongly  upon  good 
works,  did  not  want  inner  spirit  and  the  true 
requirements  of  a  righteous  life.  Thirdly,  Judaism 
handed  on  the  beginnings  of  a  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  not  only  for  the  race  in  apocalyptic 
vision,  but  also  for  the  individual,  because  of 
this  wider  expectation.  It  was  the  religion  of 
hope,  and  therefore  it  was  bound  itself  to  rise 
again  to  newness  of  life  in  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK  AND  ROMAN 

The  Jews  of  the  days  of  Jesus  were  dispersed 
over  the  entire  Roman  world.  Those  in  Pales¬ 
tine  held  closely  to  the  ideas  and  prejudices  of 
their  ancestors.  With  a  tenacity  born  of  racial 
spirit,  and  bred  by  generations  of  strictest  re¬ 
ligious  training,  protected  by  the  hard  shell  of 
their  peculiar  ceremonial  and  their  extreme 
veneration  for  the  Law,  they  looked  out  upon 
the  world  from  their  little  ancestral  valley  of  the 
Jordan  and  the  surrounding  hills  with  the  same 
vision  that  their  fathers  had  had  for  five  hundred 
years.  The  growth  of  world-powers  about  them, 
the  trampling  down  of  their  country  by  contend¬ 
ing  armies,  the  tossing  to  and  fro  of  their  little 
province  as  a  slight  and  despised  pawn  in  the 
greater  game  of  nations,  —  all  this  experience 
tended  to  shut  them  in  more  securely  than  ever, 
and  to  increase  to  hatred  their  religious  disdain 
of  all  Gentiles.  They  were  convinced  that  the 
world  was  made  for  them;  that  they  were  the 
Chosen  of  God,  who  in  his  own  good  time  would 

56 


\ 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH ,  GREEK,  ROMAN  5  7 


restore  to  them  their  lost  autonomy,  and  entrust 
to  them  the  government  of  the  world  after  he 
had  sufficiently  punished  all  their  enemies. 

With  a  national  consciousness  so  severe,  so 
audacious,  so  insurmountable  and  indestructible, 
the  Jews  had  very  definite  notions  about  things. 
They  despised  and  hated  Greek  and  Roman 
alike.  Upon  all  their  civilization  they  looked 
down  with  contempt.  They  were  often  engaged 
in  quarrels  with  their  neighbors,  the  Samaritans, 
who  were  enough  like  them  to  excite  their  bitter¬ 
ness.  Those  of  their  own  number  who  in  any 
way  betrayed  the  nation’s  pride  or  compromised 
with  the  world  about  them,  or  forgot  the  rites 
of  their  religion  or  sold  themselves  to  the  foreigner 
for  gold,  were  looked  upon  with  holy  horror  and 
were  outcasts  everywhere.  The  strictest  sect, 
the  Pharisees,  having  in  their  hands  the  educa¬ 
tional  forces  of  the  synagogues  scattered  every¬ 
where  among  the  people,  impressed  the  Law 
upon  each  plastic  mind  and  hunted  any  heresy 
with  keenest  scent.  Religion  was  a  form  of 
patriotism,  institutional  in  method  and  formal 
in  content.  The  temper  of  the  Jewish  mind 
was  ethical  rather  than  speculative,  and  practical 
rather  than  philosophical.  The  production  of 
well-wrought  epigrams  and  striking  phrases, 
rather  than  reasoned  systems,  was  in  accord  with 


58 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


the  inheritance  of  a  people  whose  literature 
included  no  distinctly  philosophical  book,  and 
whose  language  possessed  no  word  equivalent 
to  the  Greek  6  k6<t/xo<s } 

After  more  than  seventy-five  years  of  attempted 
union  of  civil  and  religious  leadership  in  the  per¬ 
son  of  the  high  priest,  upon  the  death  of  Alex¬ 
ander  Jannseus  in  78  b.c.,  a  new  instrument  of 
government  appeared  in  the  Sanhedrin.  It  was 
an  ecclesiastical  body,  and  was  early  tempered 
to  the  Pharisaic  standards.  At  that  time  the 
severity  of  the  Pharisees  forced  most  of  the 
people  of  a  broader  culture  into  sympathy  with 
the  Sadducees,  and  laid  the  foundations  for  years 
of  bitter  opposition  between  the  two  parties.  In 
63  B.c.,  Pompey  took  Jerusalem  for  Rome  with 
dreadful  slaughter.  In  40  b.c., Herod  was  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  will  of  Rome  as  king,  and  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  destroy  every  sign  of  the  Asmonean 
family  which  had  been  claimants  of  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  and  civil  power  for  more  than  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  years. 

Upon  these  people,  of  such  stormy  history, 
so  hard  to  conquer,  so  unable  to  realize  when  they 
were  defeated,  the  Greek  and  the  Roman  in  turn 
looked  with  contempt  as  keen  as  that  which  the 
Jew  felt  for  his  Gentile  overlord.  Everywhere 
1  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  162. 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK,  ROMAN  59 


society  was  divided  into  two  parts  by  race  pecu¬ 
liarities.  Thrown  upon  their  own  resources, 
herding  together,  compelled  to  rely  upon  their 
countrymen  for  everything,  and  avoiding  all  close 
contact  with  the  foreigner,  the  Jews  were  a 
peculiar  people  to  the  Romans,  wdio  could  not 
understand  their  temper  or  appreciate  their  better 
qualities.  There  was  a  middle  wall  of  partition 
between  Jew  and  Gentile  in  actual  practise 
higher  than  that  prescribed  by  the  Law. 

In  spite  of  their  segregation  the  Jews  did 
receive  much  from  others.  It  was  an  age  of 
syncretism  in  religion  which  none  could  resist. 
“At  no  other  time  perhaps,”  writes  Harnaek, 
“  in  the  history  of  religion,  and  in  no  other  people, 
were  the  most  extreme  antitheses  so  closely  asso¬ 
ciated  under  the  binding  influence  of  religion.” 
They  looked  upon  matter  as  evil  in  itself,  as  the 
Persians  were  wont  to  do.  They  had  adopted  a 
dualism  that  ran  through  life,  and  divided  not 
only  the  visible  but  the  invisible,  and  even  the 
world  to  come.  They  had  begun  to  work  out  a 
doctrine  of  immortality  for  the  righteous.  They 
had  also  adopted  a  scheme  of  angelology,  partly 
at  least  of  Persian  origin,  and  peopled  the  earth 
with  spirits  good  and  bad.  Through  these  un¬ 
seen  but  ever-present  attendants,  they  accounted 
for  the  unaccountable,  and  were  ready  to  explain 


60 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


disaster  as  a  sign  of  bad  spirits  at  work  upon 
them  or  about  them. 

There  were  two  forms  of  Messianism  among 
them.  One  was  transcendental,  and  exhausted 
itself  in  writing  and  reading  apocalypse.  The 
other  was  revolutionary,  and  with  short  patience 
was  seeking  to  hurry  on  the  crisis.  The  upper 
classes,  having  suffered  less,  and  being  better 
trained  in  thought,  were  given  to  transcendental- 
*  ism;  but  the  poor,  the  oppressed,  the  ignorant 
and  suffering  were  ready  for  the  torch  and  vio¬ 
lence  against  the  foreigner  who  lorded  it  over 
them.  Small  chance  had  they  of  success,  but 
thus  they  expressed  their  Hope. 

One  common  cause  for  restlessness  was  the 
generally  accepted  belief  that  theirs  was  an  age 
of  transition  between  the  futile  past  and  a  future 
big  writh  promise.  The  prophetic  forecast  of 
the  Kingdom  belonged  to  the  nation  as  a  whole. 
Only  those  who  had  gone  over  to  the  Greek 
influence  altogether,  failed  to  cherish  this  an¬ 
cestral  Hope.  It  warmed  the  hearts  of  the 
common  people  and  became  a  watchword  with 
the  pious  everywhere.  It  was  a  favorite  topic 
of  speculation  with  the  rabbis  and  the  scribes. 
It  filled  and  vitalized  the  imaginative  pages  of 
the  writers  of  Apocalyptic  literature.  It  was  the 
theme  of  the  loftiest  poetry  of  the  day.  It  was 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH ,  GREEK,  ROMAN  61 


almost  an  obsession  of  the  people,  and  whenever 
their  lot  was  hardest  to  bear  this  demand  upon 
the  future  was  made  with  renewed  intensity. 

“The  religion  of  a  given  race  at  a  given  time 
is  relative  to  the  mental  attitude  of  that  time.”1 
We  must  therefore  seek  to  estimate  the  main 
currents  of  the  mental  life  of  the  dominant  races 
in  Palestine  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era, 
in  order  that  we  may  understand  the  atmosphere 
which  one  born  there  would  breathe.  We  must 
look  not  only  to  the  immediate  Jewish  environ¬ 
ment,  but  also  to  the  forceful  influences  of  Greece 
and  Rome  which  penetrated  every  nook  and 
cranny  of  the  land.  Philo  had  not  hesitated  to 
lay  hands  upon  the  treasures  of  Greek  philosophy, 
Platonic  and  Stoic  alike,  and  to  wed  them  to  the 
scriptures  of  his  people,  so  that  every  Hellenizing 
Jew  was  becoming  familiar  wdth  the  resultant 
teaching.  Jewish  thought  was  not  a  stranger 
to  Greek  forms,  as  is  proved  in  the  writings  of 
the  Sibyl  and  the  Septuagint.  The  Jew  of  the 
Dispersion,  who  had  inherited  no  philosophy, 
was  striving  to  adjust  his  theology  to  the  current 
dualism  of  the  Platonic  school  or  the  monism 
of  the  Stoics.  The  practical  Romans  and  the 
metaphysical  Greeks  influenced  the  Hebrews  by 
indirection  more  than  by  immediate  contact, 
1  Hatch,  Hibbert  Lectures,  1888. 


62 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


but  none  the  less  deserve  consideration  as  factors 
in  the  making  of  the  medium  in  which  Jesus 
grew. 

Rome  was  at  her  highest  in  power,  and  her 
best  in  expression  of  it,  when  the  first  Christian 
century7  dawned.  She  ruled  the  world,  and  saw 
the  influence  of  her  civilization  dominating  life 
upon  three  continents.  The  world  was  a  Roman 
world.  Greek  culture  and  Roman  law  were 
amalgamated  in  social  institutions,  and  prevailed 
in  the  state.  Happiness  of  the  individual  was 
the  universal  end.  Egoism  ruled,  and  even 
those  who  followed  Plato  in  his  doctrine  that  the 
only  happiness  rests  in  virtue,  and  that  the 
highest  good  lies  in  God,  dropped  to  a  very  com¬ 
mon  egoism  in  concrete  action.  The  school  of 
Aristotle,  more  practical,  was  no  less  egoistic; 
and  the  Stoic  taught  the  virtue  of  a  safe  ritual 
within  the  soul  itself,  where  no  appeal  to  outer 
things  could  reach.  The  high-minded  teaching 
of  Epicurus  was  open  to  interpretation  which 
made  it  a  system  of  palliation  for  wrong-doing 
and  defense  of  personal  weakness.  He  formu¬ 
lated  a  scheme  of  morals  which  should  guarantee 
a  happy  life,  and  noble  men  like  Lucretius  sought 
to  realize  it.  His  far  successors  lowered  the 
standard  of  happiness  which  he  set.  Under 
shelter  of  his  name,  and  using  his  theory  that  vir- 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK,  ROMAN  63 


tue  is  of  no  value  save  as  it  contributes  to  an 
agreeable  life,  they  forgot  that  true  pleasure  must 
be  for  the  whole  life,  not  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
hour,  —  for  the  soul,  not  for  the  body,  —  and 
gave  themselves  up  to  sensual  delights  and  im¬ 
moralities.  The  fifth  philosophic  school,  the 
New  Academy,  set  as  its  standard  of  right  that 
which  is  considered  honorable.  Decorum,  not 
inner  worth,  was  their  aim,  and  whatever  left  a 
man  unblamed  by  his  fellows  was  virtuous. 

There  was  no  inclusive  idea  of  humanity,  but 
instead  of  it,  each  man  saw  the  immediate  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  various  classes  and  conditions  to  him¬ 
self.  Self-interest,  as  Epictetus  was  wont  to  say, 
became  the  father,  brother,  country,  god  of  men. 
Cicero  confessed,  “We  have  neither  true  right, 
nor  true  justice;  we  have  only  a  shadow,  a  feeble 
reflection.'*1  No  man  existed  apart  from  the 
state,  of  which  he  was  a  part  and  to  wThich  he 
owed  everything.  The  Greek  and  Roman  de- 
fined  all  other  men  as  “barbarians,”  not  quite 
on  the  level  of  their  humanity,  but  nearer  that  of 
the  slave,  who  by  nature  was  inferior.  A  deep 
and  settled  contempt  for  all  who  were  not  Greek 
or  Roman  pervaded  the  age.  Men  like  Cicero 
regarded  every  foreigner  as  an  enemv.  Indeed, 
the  Latin  word  for  stranger  means  a  foe.  No 

1  Schmidt,  The  Social  Results  of  Early  Christianity,  p.  108. 


64 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


idea  of  one  human  race  was  found  in  their  phil¬ 
osophy.  Aristotle’s  idea,  that  only  those  with 
property  enough  not  to  be  obliged  to  work  de¬ 
serve  the  title  of  citizen,  was  generally  held;  and 
the  consequent  aristocrary  of  wealth,  the  most 
dangerous  and  unworthy  aristocracy  possible, 
was  in  power.  Humility,  meekness,  self-sacrifice, 
were  regarded  with  contempt.  No  friendship  was 
thought  worth  while  which  did  not  prove  advan¬ 
tageous,  and  it  rarely  lasted  through  time  of  need. 

Roman  society  was  indifferent  to  the  traits  we 
associate  with  high  sentiment  and  fine  character. 
It  wras  self-centered  and  mean.  Woman  was 
oppressed  and  considered  inferior  to  man.  Mar¬ 
riage  was  regarded  rather  as  a  duty  to  the  state 
than  a  matter  of  personal  preference  or  affection. 
Public  morals  were  in  a  general  decay.  Even 
Vespasian  and  Marcus  Aurelius  were  not  ashamed 
to  maintain  their  concubines  before  the  world. 
Thus  woman  was  debased  in  her  most  sacred 
self,  and  made  the  tool  of  the  lustful  impulses 
of  the  sex  in  power.  A  pure  and  loyal  wife  was 
a  rarity  in  Rome,  and  even  women  of  noble 
families  caused  their  names  to  be  enrolled  among 
the  courtezans  that  they  might  escape  punish¬ 
ment  for  their  amours.  In  spite  of  legislation 
and  imperial  edicts,  woman  sank  to  lower  depths 
and  marriage  became  a  farce. 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK,  ROMAN  65 


Plato  and  Aristotle  both  taught  that  it  was  not 
worth  while  for  the  state  to  rear  deformed  or  puny 
children,  and  advised  the  poor  to  practise  abor¬ 
tion  rather  than  load  undesired  infants  upon  the 
public.  Education  was  planned  to  fit  the  child 
to  serve  the  state.  Plato  suggested  that  all 
children  of  aristocratic  families  should  be  given 
over  to  public  nurses  and  their  identity  lost  to 
their  parents.  Boys  were  trained  for  politics  and 
girls  for  lives  of  submission.  As  parents  grew 
dissolute,  children  were  neglected,  left  to  incom¬ 
petent  and  corrupting  servants,  or  sent  to  public 
schools,  where  they  were  subject  to  few  ennobling 
influences  and  no  moral  restraints.  No  boy 
could  learn  a  trade,  for  that  would  lower  him  in 
popular  esteem.  Artisans  of  every  kind  were 
held  in  disdain.  All  money-getting  occupations, 
excepting  the  professions  or  great  commercial 
enterprises,  were  rejected  as  unworthy  of  citizens 
and  fit  only  for  slaves.  In  consequence  those 
who  were  compelled  to  work  hated  it.  Slaves 
were  considered  to  be  of  a  lower  order  of  being 
arid  a  natural  necessity.  They  did  most  of 
the  work.  A  mass  of  turbulent,  dissatisfied 
people  filled  Rome  and  grew  poor  in  the  midst 
of  its  luxury.  They  had  no  place  of  refuge  in 
sickness,  and  no  charity  was  open  to  them  in 
distress. 


66 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


These  conditions  extended  to  the  provinces, 
and  there  the  experiences  of  Rome  were  re¬ 
peated.  Human  life  was  cheap  and  often  sold 
for  a  holiday.  Man  had  fallen  miserably  into 
a  false  philosophy  and  an  inhuman  practise. 
He  needed  to  be  rescued  and  given  a  new  ideal, 
a  better  philosophy,  and  a  kindlier  spirit.  Coarse¬ 
ness,  cruelty,  passion,  and  vanity  were  character¬ 
istic  of  men  in  personal  relations,  and  the  pillars 
of  society  tottered  in  their  places.  Greed  and 
luxury  had  brought  their  inevitable  degeneracy, 
with  ennui  from  surfeit.1  The  cruelties  of  the 
arena,  and  the  butcheries  of  pagan  captives  to 
make  sport  for  the  crowd,  were  popular  with 
rich  and  poor  alike.  One  honors  those  Saxon 
prisoners  who,  when  condemned  to  fight  each 
other  before  a  crowd,  were  found  to  have  taken 
their  own  lives. 

Here  and  there  a  nobler  mind  saw  with  indig¬ 
nation  the  trend  of  societv.  Tacitus  mourned 

«/ 

over  his  Annals,  Lucretius  wrote  his  high  phil¬ 
osophies  in  the  style  of  the  ancient  Greeks,  and 
Juvenal  composed  his  mordant  satires  on  the 
times;  while  Seneca  the  Stoic  wrote  his  moral 
treatises  and  Cicero  speculated  “  On  the  Nature 
of  the  Gods.”  Popular  religions  and  established 
rites  of  sacrifice  indicated  human  need  of  expres- 
1  Seneca,  De  Ira,  II,  8.  De  Brev.  Bit.,  16. 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK,  ROMAN  67 


sion  for  the  spiritual  sense,  but  their  influence 
ended  in  a  moral  impotence. 

It  is  doubtful  if  the  Greeks,  recognized  by  St. 
Paul  as  “very  religious,”  surpassed  the  Romans, 
who  gathered  together  all  the  “  shreds  and 
patches”  of  religion  that  the  world  produced, 
and  developed  a  deep  and  general  superstition. 
“  Never  did  the  religious  life  of  man  offer  a  more 
bewildering  multiplication  and  variety.”1  As  a 
measure  of  safety,  they  undertook  to  treat  all 
gods  alike,  and  thus,  offending  none,  to  aid 
their  chances  of  good  fortune.  Such  an  eclecti¬ 
cism  could  issue  only  in  doubt.  As  usual  when 
doubt  prevails,  faith  in  the  miraculous  was  wide¬ 
spread.  The  social  changes  that  brought  new 
and  uncultivated  people,  even  slaves,  into  wealth 
and  position,  maintained  in  them  the  ancient 
faiths  upon  which  they  relied  as  safeguards  for 
their  new  possessions.  But  the  active  principle 
of  their  religion  was  fear,  lest  somehow  harm 
come  upon  them  from  some  unpropitiated  source. 

The  confusion  of  a  divided  worship  led  to  loss 
of  clear  vision  of  duty  and  to  dissatisfaction  of 
soul.  The  mean  and  unworthy  character  of  the 
gods,  which  men  had  multiplied  after  the  image 
of  their  own  natures,  brought  disillusion  to  the 
thoughtful,  and  encouraged  them  in  practical 
1  Dill,  Roman  Life,  p.  384. 


68 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


irreligion  or  atheism.  Nothing  was  assured 
beyond  the  grave,  and  each  chose  the  way  by 
which  he  thought  to  get  the  most  out  of  life. 
The  gods  themselves  would  not  do  otherwise. 
They  even  throve  on  lust  and  were  honored  in 
debauchery.  The  best  men  of  Rome  were 
impatient  of  divinities  in  whom  they  could  not 
believe.  The  intelligent  classes  felt  a  contempt 
for  the  ever-present  augurs  and  their  oracles.1 
Lucretius  declared  that  religion  was  the  cause 
of  all  evils,  but  he  gave  man  nothing  to  take  its 
place.  Cicero  thought  that  the  ancient  faith 
should  be  preserved,  as  a  necessity  in  governing 
the  people,  but  he  saw  its  doom  impending. 
When  emperors  were  apotheosized,  and  a  man 
like  Domitian  spoke  of  himself  in  his  decrees 
as  “  lord  and  god,”  worship  could  be  nothing 
more  than  tradition,  and  piety  was  dead.  Then 
men  had  recourse  in  their  need  to  every  super¬ 
stition  and  religious  nostrum  of  the  world,  — 
magic,  soothsayers’  arts,  theosophy,  and  every 
foreign  faith.  Augustus  consulted  star-readers 
from  the  East,  and  Nero  was  a  slave  to  supersti¬ 
tion.  The  forum  was  crowded  full  of  gods 
whom  no  one  could  respect  or  trust,  and  religion 
was  as  nearly  snuffed  out  as  a  fundamental 
passion  of  the  human  heart  can  be.  Tacitus 

1  Cicero,  De  Div.,  II,  24. 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK,  ROMAN  69 


says  the  emperor  Tiberius  admitted  that  the 
remedy  could  be  found,  not  in  outer  additions 
to  the  number  of  their  gods,  nor  by  the  elabora¬ 
tion  of  ritual,  nor  through  any  outer  mechanism, 
but  only  in  the  soul  of  man  itself. 

The  Greek  mind  was  more  free  to  speculate 
than  the  Roman.  The  inheritance  of  the  one 
had  been  a  legacy  of  ideas,  independent  of  a 
state  they  had  not  maintained;  of  the  other  a 
legacy  of  deeds  intimately  bound  up  with  the 
state.  The  growing  appreciation  of  personality 
for  the  individual  and  for  God  influenced  the 
Greek  toward  the  thought  of  an  ordered  uni¬ 
verse.  The  Stoics  standing  on  their  one  world- 
stuff  debated  with  the  Platonic  dualists,  and  both 
made  monotheism  familiar,  whether  God  were 
producing  the  world  by  his  own  self-evolution 
or  creating  it  by  his  causal  thought.  There  was 
much  more  culture  of  an  intellectual  sort  among 
the  Greeks  than  among  the  Romans.  They 
were  devoted  to  rhetoric  and  its  practise  in 
public  speech,  and  provided  the  majority  of 
teachers  in  the  schools  of  Rome.  There  was 
little  or  no  original  thinking,  but  a  constant 
drawing  upon  the  ancient  sources  for  material. 
In  consequence,  there  was  less  of  affirmation, 
and  a  tendency  to  rest  content  in  old  positions 
or  to  deny  them  altogether. 


70 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


There  was  an  ethical  struggle  against  the 
evident  decline  in  social  life  and  in  religion,  and 
the  issue  was  often  carried  to  asceticism.  This 
same  trend  affected  theological  thought  to  make 
it  more  monotheistic,  and  God  was  conceived 
as  himself  an  ethical  being.  The  popular  mental 
exercise  was  metaphysical,  and  philosophy  was 
current  everywhere  to  a  remarkable  extent. 
Greek  ethics  rested  on  the  reason,  while  Hebrew 
thinking  derived  its  ethical  sanction  from  revela¬ 
tion. 

There  was  a  general  search  for  new  religious 
values,  and  a  certain  expectancy  of  better  things 
to  come.  While  the  Roman  treated  religion  as 
a  matter  of  the  state,  and  had  little  sympathy 
with  those  who  found  the  highest  personal 
interest  in  it,  the  Greek  had  a  keener  perception 
of  the  inner  worth  of  faith.  He  sought  religion 
for  itself  rather  than  as  a  means  to  political  ends. 
The  Greek  education,  carried  on  in  schools  at 
Athens,  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  in  all  larger 
Greek  and  Roman  cities,  attracted  multitudes, 
even  from  among  the  poor.  Teachers  were  held 
in  high  regard  and  amassed  fortunes  by  the 
practise  of  their  profession. 

Justin  Martyr  was  willing  to  enroll  at  least 
two  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  Heraclitus  and 
Socrates,  as  Christians.  Plato’s  doctrine  of 


WORLD-VIEW:  JEWISH,  GREEK,  ROMAN  71 


ideas,  among  which  the  soul  found  a  fitting 
home,  and  the  ethical  idealism  which  he  taught, 
commended  him  to  thoughtful  Jewrs.  His  con¬ 
trast  between  the  ideal  and  the  reality,  and  his 
insistence  that  man  must  conquer  the  world  in 
himself,  appealed  to  their  way  of  thinking. 
Platonic  ethics,  founded  upon  the  reason,  and 
finding  an  intrinsic  worth  in  goodness,  did  not 
seem  so  far  away  from  the  revealed  ethics  of  the 
Law.  Likewise  Stoicism  made  its  worth  felt 
by  those  who  had  been  reared  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  wisdom.  They  agreed  with  it  that  virtue 
or  righteousness  is  itself  the  highest  good,  and 
that  the  only  happy  man  is  the  righteous  man. 
They  too  found  in  God  a  wise  Providence,  of 
perfect  moral  character,  and  in  the  soul  a  power 
of  survival  which  death  could  not  destroy.  Alex¬ 
andrian  Judaism  developed  the  Logos  doctrine, 
of  a  spirit  of  wisdom  wdth  God,  mediating  for 
him  the  creative  task,  in  which  philosophical 
monism  and  Jewish  theism  seem  to  unite.  Philo 
enthusiastically  joined  Greek  philosophy  and 
Hebrew  theology,  bridged  the  gulf  between  the 
Infinite  and  the  world  by  his  “  Ideas,”  the  chief 
of  which  were  the  angel  guardians  about  the 
throne  of  God,  and  of  these  the  greatest  was  the 
Logos. 

Philo  dipped  his  brush  in  every  pigment, 


72 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Platonic,  Stoic,  Hebrew,  and  painted  his  pictures 
with  the  free  hand  of  an  impressionist.  Man’s 
soul  was  a  prisoner  in  an  evil  body,  joined  to  God 
by  faith,  and  vision  of  him  is  the  highest  mortal 
experience.  He  insisted  upon  a  deeper  religious 
life  than  can  be  attained  through  formal  offerings 
or  keeping  of  the  Law,  and  brought  the  warmth 
of  the  Greek  spirit  into  the  cold  formalism  of  the 
Jewish  faith,  to  vitalize  it  and  lift  the  members 
of  his  race  into  the  immediate  presence  and 
fellowship  of  God.  No  direct  influence  of  Philo 
upon  Jesus  can  be  proved,  or  even  thought  of, 
but  the  service  he  rendered  in  preparing  for  the 
acceptance  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  at  a  later 
day  requires  that  he  be  included  in  this  discussion, 
and  his  work  illustrates  how  intimately  blended 
the  thought-life  of  the  day  had  come  to  be. 

Out  from  the  heart  of  such  a  civilization,  in 
which  the  Roman  was  submerged  in  things  and 
monopolized  by  the  State,  the  Greek  was  seeking 
to  adjust  his  old  philosophies  to  new  conditions, 
and  the  Jew  was  hiding  his  prophetic  treasure 
in  a  priestly  napkin,  came  forth  Jesus  Christ. 
He  heard  each  voice  as  it  spoke  the  message  of 
the  people  to  his  eager  heart,  and  in  himself  he 
gave  the  answer  to  them  all;  the  Way  for  the 
Roman,  the  Truth  for  the  Greek,  the  Life  for 
the  Jew. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  INTO  WHICH  JESUS 

CAME 

The  social  atmosphere  of  Palestine  was  con¬ 
trolled  by  three  main  influences,  emanating  from 
the  education  of  Jewish  youth,  from  political 
and  religious  parties,  and  from  Greek  and  Roman 
thought  and  institutions  in  the  land.  But  be¬ 
neath  all  was  the  ever-present  Messianism.  It 
could  not  brook  the  cool,  collected,  and  patient 
waiting  for  something  cataclysmic  to  occur, 
which  the  Pharisee  counseled,  but  felt  impelled 
to  move,  and  to  originate  the  Kingdom  and  its 
better  state  so  painfully  delayed.  The  radicals 

always  demand  a  chance  to  act.  This  element 
«/ 

in  the  population  had  no  taste  for  apocalypses 
and  their  idle,  futile  dreams.  Carlyle’s  eternal 
conjugation  of  the  verb  To  Do  was  more  to  its 
mind.  Just  as  the  more  educated  classes  in 
Russia  wait  and  hope  and  frown  on  revolution, 
passing  good  resolutions  of  loyalty  in  their  meet¬ 
ings,  and  even  in  the  Zemstvo,  while  the  peasant, 
the  ignorant  man  who  was  not  so  long  ago  a 
serf,  will  not  wait,  but  demands  ever  more,  and 

73 


74 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


enforces  his  demands  by  strikes,  by  forceful 
revolution,  fire  and  blood;  so  there  were  two 
sections  of  society  in  those  old  days  among  the 
Jews.  The  lower,  poorer  party  broke  out  now 
and  then  in  action  under  some  impromptu  leader, 
who  w^as  quickly  given  his  reward  of  martyrdom 
by  the  powers  that  be.  There  was  less  chance 
of  success  than  there  is  for  the  muzhik,  but  the 
burning  hope  was  in  their  hearts.  That  is  one 
reason  why  the  common  people  heard  the  words 
of  Jesus  gladly.  He  spoke  of  present  relief,  not 
of  future  glory,  and  he  spoke  directly  to  their 
hearts.  Outbreaks  of  greater  or  lesser  moment 
frequently  occurred  all  down  the  years,  from  the 
Maccabees  to  the  time  of  Christ.  Pharisee  and 
Zealot,  each  of  these  classes  was  stirred  by  the 
Messianic  Hope,  —  but  the  one  to  sedition,  the 
other  to  submission.  The  common  people  vented 
their  impatience  and  asserted  their  religious  zeal 
through  these  local  and  limited,  but  not  infrequent, 
attempts,  in  ways  inadequate  and  pathetically 
abortive,  to  realize  something  of  their  God- 
promised  Hope.  The  other  people,  the  thinking 
people,  trained  by  the  Pharisees,  read  and  wrote 
apocalypses,  which  transported  them  from  the 
evil  present  to  the  time  when  all  would  be  well. 
They  took  a  profane  delight  in  calling  down 
anathemas  upon  the  heads  of  their  enemies  whom 


SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  PALESTINE  75 


they  dared  not  touch,  whom  indeed  they  were 
assured  they  did  not  need  to  touch,  for  they  must 
see  to  it  only  that  they  themselves  were  ready  for 
the  good  gift  when  God  gave  it,  which  he  surely 
would  do  soon.  Lifted  above  the  oppressive 
conditions  of  the  poor,  not  constrained  to  rebel¬ 
lion  by  actual  physical  distress,  they  looked  down 
upon  the  seditious  acts  of  their  poor  neighbors 
with  condemnation,  as  Josephus  tells  us  now 
and  then.  Both  inheritances  from  the  ancient 
Hope  must  have  affected  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and 
made  him  more  appreciative  of  the  need,  and 
more  sympathetic  with  each,  than  either  class 
could  be  with  the  other. 

Education  meant  much  to  the  Hebrew.  It 
was  a  religious  duty.  The  school  was  hard  by 
or  within  the  very  walls  of  the  synagogue.  The 
earliest  lessons  of  a  child  were  given  him  from 
Deuteronomy  (6:  4,  5;  7:  7).  Scripture  stories 
and  selections  from  the  poetry  of  the  Psalms 
followed.  David  and  Moses  and  the  patriarchs, 
—  all  were  made  familiar  to  every  child.  From 
the  age  of  six  until  twelve  every  boy  was  ex¬ 
pected  to  attend  the  synagogue  school  and  to 
recite  his  catechism  on  the  Sabbath.  Thus  he 
became  a  “Son  of  the  Commandment.”  But 
in  the  synagogue  the  Thorah  was  the  real  lesson 
book.  “  We  take  most  pains  of  all,”  said  Josephus, 


76 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


“  with  the  instruction  of  children,  and  esteem 
the  observation  of  the  laws  and  the  piety  cor¬ 
responding  with  them  the  most  important  affair 
of  our  whole  life.”  Josephus  boasts  of  his 
own  minute  knowledge  of  the  Law  at  the  age 
of  fourteen.  Books  of  the  Scriptures  were  fre¬ 
quently  in  possession  of  private  individuals,  and 
writing  as  well  as  reading  wras  no  rare  accom- 
plishment.1  Occasionally  a  family  owned,  as  a 
precious  heirloom,  a  roll  of  the  Law  or  the  Prophets 
or  of  Psalmody,  and  used  it  for  home  reading 
with  veneration. 

There  were  three  main  parties  developed  in 
the  chance  of  the  religious  situation,  but  one  of 
these  was  so  divided  as  to  make  practically  four. 
These  were  the  Pharisees,  with  their  lesser 
division,  or  related  group,  the  Essenes;  the 
Zealots  and  the  Sadducees.  This  last  group 
was  more  political  than  religious,  busying  itself 
with  the  perquisites  of  ecclesiasticism  and  caring 
little  for  the  faith.  It  was  the  aristocratic  party, 
of  little  principle,  with  “  laissez-faire  ”  as  its 
motto,  courting  the  favor  of  the  foreigner,  and 
affecting  all  his  culture.  Of  them  there  need  be 
said  no  more,  save  that  they  had  absolutely 
nothing  in  common  with  Jesus,  and  he  finally 
died  at  their  hands. 


1  Schiirer. 


SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  PALESTINE  77 


The  Pharisees  were  the  religious  people  of  the 
day.  But  their  bent  was  scholastic  rather  than 
social,  individualistic  more  than  universal,  legal 
and  not  definitely  spiritual,  because  of  this 
legalistic  practise.  Yet  here  if  anywhere  was 
the  hope  for  Israel,  and  doubtless  to  this  party, 
if  to  any,  Jesus  would  belong.  They  had  pos¬ 
session  of  the  schools,  and  ruled  the  synagogues, 
which  were  their  refuge  over  against  the  Sad- 
ducean  perversion  of  the  temple.  They  held 
that  the  Jews  were  a  peculiar  possession  of  God, 
and  that  they  in  turn  possessed  him  uniquely 
as  their  King.  The  “Shemoneh  Esreh,”  recited 
daily  by  the  faithful,  includes  these  words:  “Be 
King  over  us,  Thou  alone,  O  God.”  It  was  the 
duty  of  the  people  to  drive  out  the  Roman  when 
they  could.  The  Gentile  had  a  right  for  a  time 
to  rule,  but  the  time  was  short.  A  universal 
kingdom  wrould  soon  come,  in  which  the  tables 
would  be  turned,  and  the  Hebrew  would  ad¬ 
minister  affairs  under  guidance  of  a  King  to 
come  from  the  skies  to  supernatural  power  and 
authority.  A  judgment  would  precede,  like  that 
which  John  preached.  Once  more  would  the 
Gentiles  make  assault  upon  the  Messiah,  but 
in  vain,  for  they  would  be  surely  overthrown 
forever. 

The  Essenes  were  not  a  distinct  party,  but  a 


78 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


purist  sect  of  the  Pharisees.  They  formed  a 
monastic  brotherhood,  and  their  name  prob¬ 
ably  means  The  Pious.  They  wore  white  gar¬ 
ments,  they  made  a  cult  of  ceremonial  purity 
and  went  about  ministering  to  the  poor  and  sick 
and  needy.  They  were  extremely  liberal  in 
their  attitude  toward  the  Law  and  the  ritual  of 
the  temple.  Their  legalism  was  of  another  sort. 
They  prayed  at  dawn  for  the  coming  of  the 
Judge,  and  regarded  the  glory  of  the  setting  sun 
with  awe  as  typical  of  paradise  for  which  they 
strove.  They  had  many  customs,  like  their 
grouping  of  teacher  and  disciples,  their  common 
purse,  their  common  religious  meal,  their  abound¬ 
ing  service  to  the  sick,  which  Jesus  afterward 
practised  with  his  followers.  If  they  did  not 
influence  him  in  these  externals,  and  they  were 
themselves  influenced  by  Greek  thought  through 
the  neighboring  cities  of  Decapolis  or  the  Thera- 
peutse  of  Alexandria,  then  Jesus  himself  may 
have  come  more  or  less  under  these  same  Greek 
influences  also.  But  the  spirit  and  tendency  of 
the  Essenes  were  far  from  being  in  harmony  with 
Jesus.  They  separated  themselves  from  the 
world,  to  live  in  some  chapter-house  in  town  or 
country,  on  the  ground  that  contact  with  life  was 
contaminating.  Refuges  and  monasteries  in  the 
desert  were  their  final  habitation.  Their  spirit 


SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  PALESTINE  79 


was  overmastered  and  smothered  by  their  cult 
of  purity. 

The  Zealots,  as  their  name  implies,  were  the 
party  of  action,  the  opportunists  who  sought 
continually  for  a  chance  by  force  to  bring  about 
a  better  state  of  things  and  liberate  the  nation 
from  a  galling  yoke.  They  were  well  watched, 
and  their  numbers  were  never  very  large.  They 
are  more  important  as  representing  an  element 
in  the  national  status  than  for  anything  they  did. 
They  appeared  at  an  attempt  to  tax  the  people 
when  Judea  became  a  Roman  province  in  6  a.d. 
under  a  procurator.  Then  came  forth  one  Judas 
of  Gaulonitis,  a  Galilean,  according  to  Josephus 
(War  II,  8:  1.  Ant.  8:  1,  6),  who  organized 
this  party  of  revolt  against  the  foreign  power 
(Ant.  xviii:  1;  1,  6).  A  strong  socialistic  spirit  of 
the  masses  against  the  classes  characterized  all 
the  history  of  the  party.  They  burned  the  houses 
of  the  rich,  even  the  archives  of  the  state,  and 
tried  to  destroy  all  evidence  of  debt,  that  they 
might  start  anew.  They  caused  the  death  of 
many  men  of  wealth,  and  several  high  priests. 
Thev  were  a  sort  of  religious  nihilists,  and  the 
idealism  of  the  members  naturally  oozed  away, 
although  they  insisted  upon  their  party  cries  of  “  No 
King  but  God,”  and  “A  new  and  worthy  state,” 
with  the  prophets  for  their  comforters  and  guides. 


80 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


John  the  Baptist  may  possibly  have  been  an 
inconsistent  Essene,  reacting  against  the  ex¬ 
tremes  of  his  party,  and  preaching  independently 
the  message  given  him,  of  the  Kingdom  near  at 
hand  and  repentance  that  must  prepare  for  it. 
A  popular  preacher  in  the  neighborhood  of 
Nazareth,  even  if  he  were  not  a  relative,  as  the 
Gospels  of  the  infancy  declare,  nor  an  acquaint¬ 
ance,  as  the  Fourth  Gospel  implies,  John  surely 
would  attract  Jesus  to  his  mission  on  the  banks 
of  the  Jordan  among  the  crowds  which  flocked 
from  every  side  to  hear  his  prophet’s  cry. 

One  other  influence  could  not  fail  to  reach 
even  up  to  Nazareth  among  the  hills,  and  must 
have  stared  in  the  face  every  pious  Jew  when¬ 
ever  he  went  down  to  his  annual  feasts  in  Jeru¬ 
salem.  The  foreigner  was  in  power  everywhere. 
The  usurper  had  erected  his  fortresses  in  every 
commanding  spot,  and  even  overtowered  the 
temple  on  its  sacred  hill.  The  Greek  culture  was 
maintained  in  all  the  cities,  and  the  men  of  affairs 
dealt  with  Greeks  and  Romans  more  than  with 
Jews  in  foreign  trade.  Hellenist  influences  per¬ 
vaded  the  country.  Greek  was  spoken  in  every 
place  where  foreigners  gathered,  and  every  coin  that 
passed  a  Hebrew  hand  —  denarius,  drachma,  tal- 
anton  —  was  marked  in  Greek  letters,  until  every 
intelligent  man  knew  something  of  the  language 


SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  PALESTINE  81 


spoken  by  all  foreign  Jews  so  familiarly  when  they 
came  home  to  attend  the  festivals  of  their  religion. 
The  name  of  their  Supreme  Council,  and  fre¬ 
quently  that  of  the  High  Priest,  was  Greek.  The 
touch  of  Hellenic  culture  was  a  broadening  in¬ 
fluence  which  no  mind  alert  and  open  could  have 
failed  to  feel  and  gather  up  for  future  use.  Those 
Greeks  who  sought  Jesus  at  the  feast  may  not 
have  needed  the  Greek-named  disciples,  Andrew 
and  Philip,  to  act  as  interpreters  for  them  when 
they  wanted  to  hold  speech  with  him.1 

The  Greek  cities  in  Palestine  were  administered 
according  to  Greek  ideas,  through  magistrates  and 
senates,  as  independent  commonwealths.  Herod 
and  others  after  him  also  built  towns  here  and 
there  inhabited  by  Gentiles,  like  Sebaste,  Caesarea, 
Gaba  in  Galilee,  and  Esbonitis  in  Perea.  These 
were  Herod's  outer  defenses,  and  centers  of  Greek 
influence  over  the  people.  Even  in  Jerusalem  he 
built  a  theater  and  amphitheater.  All  this  empha¬ 
sized  the  hatred  for  the  Gentile  in  the  Jewish  heart, 
while  it  gradually  and  inevitably  altered  opinion 
and  made  familiar  what  was  once  repulsive. 
The  rabbis  laid  down  the  law,  but  convenience, 
necessity,  and  time  became  a  sterner  law  to  break 
down  their  barriers.  The  Jew  might  avoid  the 
Greek  cities  as  plague-spots,  but  he  could  not 

1  John  12:  20  ff. 


82 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


shut  out  a  certain  atmosphere  which  came  in  on 
every  breeze  that  blew  from  Alexandria,  where 

%J  7 

so  many  Jews  were  congregated,  nor  could  the 
influence  of  theaters,  statues,  and  paintings  be 
altogether  withstood,  even  while  they  were  an 
abomination  in  Jewish  eyes.  The  Greek  lan¬ 
guage  was  spoken  upon  the  streets  of  ever}'  Jewish 
town  of  anv  size,  and  more  or  less  of  contact  with 
Greeks  and  Romans  in  trade  was  unavoidable. 
The  Septuagint  was  the  version  of  the  Old  Tes¬ 
tament  generally  in  use,  if  we  may  judge  from 
the  quotations  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  was  alike  more  common,  cheaper  to  buy,  and 
even  more  easily  understood  than  the  ancient 
Hebrew  version.  In  the  court  of  the  Gentiles 
in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  upon  the  well- 
wrought  marble  screen  which  ran  across  the  court, 
a  sign  was  placed  in  both  Latin  and  Greek, 
instructing  strangers  concerning  the  proprieties 
of  the  place.  There  were  many  Greek  words, 
especially  those  connected  with  trade,  which 
crept  into  the  Aramaic  dialect.  The  Hebrew 
had  no  term  corresponding  to  many  philosophical 
ideas,  nor  even  to  the  word  <£«Aocro<£ia  itself. 
When  words  were  naturalized  among  them, 
ideas  could  not  remain  outside. 

It  was  a  period  of  literary  activity.  Lost 
works  by  Jason  of  Gyrene,  the  Stoic  philosopher 


SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  PALESTINE  83 


Poseidonius,  by  Assinios  Polio,  Strabo,  Hipsy- 
crates,  Dellius,  Ptolemaus,  Nicolaus  of  Damascus, 
who  was  a  friend  of  Herod’s  and  an  Aristotelian 
who  wrote  much,  especially  in  history,  —  lost 
books  by  all  of  these  appeared  about  this  time. 
Justus  of  Tiberias,  a  Jew  who  had  imbibed 
Greek  culture  like  Josephus,  wrote  works  which 
it  would  be  a  great  help  for  us  to  know. 

Philo,  son  of  a  wealthy  Jewish  merchant  in 
Alexandria,  was  born  a  score  of  years  before 
Jesus,  in  the  center  of  the  Jewish  world  in  fact, 
as  Jerusalem  was  the  center  in  ideal.  He  com¬ 
bined  the  Platonic  ideas  of  God  as  transcendent, 
with  the  Stoic  ideas  of  immanence,  “the  One 
and  the  All,”  and  tried  to  lead  the  Greek  and 
Roman  world  across  the  bridge  thus  formed 
into  the  heart  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  His 
influence  upon  his  own  people  was  probably 
stronger  than  that  upon  the  outside  world,  and 
centuries  of  Christian  development  were  largely 
tinctured  by  his  thought  and  method  of  inter¬ 
pretation. 

Josephus,  born  in  Jerusalem  fifty  or  sixty 
years  later,  of  a  priestly  race,  and  carefully  edu¬ 
cated  according  to  the  standard  of  the  Jews, 
wras  himself  at  fourteen  an  instructor  in  the  Lawr. 
At  sixteen  he  went  into  the  schools  of  the  Phari¬ 
sees,  Sadducees  and  Essenes,  and  then  withdrew 


84 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


for  three  years  to  the  desert  for  meditation  and 
the  hermit  life.  At  twenty -six  he  went  to  Rome 
and  gained  the  favor  of  the  empress,  through 
whom  he  found  the  way  to  riches.  Drawn  into 
the  war  of  66,  he  became  a  commander  of  Galilee. 
Later  on  he  wrote  his  Apologia  in  Rome,  where 
he  was  a  favorite,  and  took  the  family  name  of 
Vespasian,  Flavius.  He  wrote  the  Jewish  War 
in  seven  books,  probably  at  command  of  Titus. 
The  Antiquities  were  in  twenty  books,  and 
narrated  the  history  of  the  Jews  down  to  66  a.d., 
for  Greek  and  Roman  readers,  that  he  might 
commend  his  people  to  their  favor.  Of  the 
period  4  b.c.  to  41  a.d.  he  knew  but  little.  His 
work  Contra  Appian  is  an  apology  for  his  people 
and  his  faith.  In  it  he  slights  the  Messianic 
Hope,  perhaps  because  it  had  been  a  cause  of 
uprisings  against  Rome. 

Jesus,  then,  was  born  into  a  home  of  syna¬ 
gogue-bred  Pharisaism,  where  he  was  trained 
in  all  that  made  a  pious,  law-abiding  Jew.  He 
was  given  a  chance  for  education  in  the  Thorah, 
in  reading  and  writing,  at  least,  and  he  may  have 
caught  a  smattering  of  Greek. 

Three  great  roads  within  sight  of  the  hilltops 
about  his  home  were  channels  of  all  the  life  and 
motion  of  the  stream  of  the  world’s  interests. 
Opposite  to  the  place  where  Jesus  often  climbed, 


SOCIAL  ATMOSPHERE  OF  PALESTINE  85 


he  saw  the  Jerusalem  highway  with  its  annual 
throng  of  pilgrims,  and  the  merchants  going  up 
and  down  from  Egypt.  Damascus  sent  her 
caravans  across  the  hill  on  which  he  stood.  The 
highway  between  Acre  and  Decapolis  was  not 
far  away,  with  its  soldiery  and  royalty,  its  travel 
of  wealth  and  a  display  which  could  not  fail  to 
attract  the  eye  of  a  village  lad  at  play,  whose 
imagination  never  slept.  From  childhood  he 
grew  up  with  knowledge  of  the  foreigner  and  his 
wealth  and  power.  Even  as  a  boy  he  was  in 
some  slight  touch  with  the  great,  busy,  teeming 
world.1 

Religiously,  he  felt  the  impact  of  two  Messianic 
movements  alive  and  active  among  the  people. 
One  was  ignorant,  spasmodic,  violent,  badly  led 
and  unorganized.  The  other  was  carefully  sys¬ 
tematized,  had  a  large  and  growing  literature, 
and  held  to  inaction  under  the  law  as  the  only 
possible  duty,  while  the  will  of  God  required 
them  to  wait  until  his  times  were  ripe,  a  crisis 
which  could  not  long  be  postponed.  A  thought¬ 
ful  youth  would  ponder  these  things,  and  develop 
his  own  ideas.  One  who  loved  the  companion¬ 
ship  of  nature  would  think  them  out  alone  with 
God  beneath  the  Syrian  stars  or  on  the  hilltops 
where  his  country  spread  far  and  wide  before 

1  George  Adam  Smith,  Historical  Geography,  pp.  433-4. 


86 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


him,  and  all  her  history  lay  open  to  his  eye 
like  a  book.  The  movements  of  the  poor,  un¬ 
shepherded  people  would  move  his  sensitive  soul 
and  fill  it  with  yearnings  unutterable.  The 
policy  of  helpless  waiting  for  God  to  act,  putting 
off  all  initiative  upon  him,  wTould  stir  the  blood 
of  an  earnest  patriot.  Thus  Jesus  grew  and 
ripened  in  his  mind,  and  developed  purposes 
and  dreamed  dreams,  and  was  prepared  for  the 
coming  of  a  great  experience  to  his  soul  in  the 
preaching  of  John  the  Baptist. 


PART  II 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  SELF- 
CONSCIOUSNESS  OF  JESUS 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 

The  birth  of  Jesus  has  been  surrounded  for 
centuries  by  the  most  natural  and  fitting  halo 
of  mystery  and  poetic  imagination.  No  event 
in  history  invites  the  dreaming  fancy  or  the  in¬ 
terpreting  thought  of  the  ages  as  this  one  of  the 
birth  of  a  child  who  in  his  life  and  death  revealed 
to  mankind  more  of  the  true  nature  of  God  and 
man  than  all  other  persons  or  things  have  ever 
done.  AYhen  those  who  believed  in  him  began 
to  organize  their  faith  and  to  proclaim  the  gospel 
he  had  committed  to  their  care,  their  hearts  were 
filled  with  a  great  affection,  and  their  minds  with 
the  overpowering  truths  of  the  incarnation,  as 
they  had  learned  them  from  their  Master  in  life 
and  in  death.  For  he  being  dead  yet  spake  to 
them,  in  those  fresh  revelations  and  heartening 
experiences  by  which  they  were  assured  of  his 
resurrection  and  his  presence  with  them  forever 
in  the  spirit. 

Up  to  the  death  of  Jesus  his  disciples  thought 
of  him  as  a  man  like  themselves,  only  grown  to  a 

89 


90 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


nobler  stature.  Even  when  confessing  their 
highest  faith  in  him,  they  dared  to  rebuke  him 
for  what  they  regarded  as  errors  in  his  judgment 
or  lapses  in  his  spirit  (Matt.  16:  22).  They 
never  looked  upon  him  as  in  any  sensuous  fashion 
apart  from  themselves,  but  rather  they  became 
attached  to  him  by  the  closest  human  ties,  and 
went  about  with  him  as  the  followers  and  friends 
of  any  rabbi  might  attend  him,  only  with  far 
more  personal  attachment  and  devotion. 

The  oldest  of  the  Gospels,  St.  Mark,  gives  us 
no  hint  of  any  other  than  a  natural  birth  of  Jesus, 
but  speaks  of  his  family  and  his  home  in  Naza¬ 
reth  in  a  way  to  preclude  any  current  knowledge 
of  his  having  been  miraculously  born.  On  the 
contrary,  there  was  a  plainly  marked  tradition 
that  he  was  born  of  the  lineage  of  David  on  his 
father’s  side,  and  this  tradition  appears  in  each 
of  the  Gospels,  even  in  the  genealogies  of  the  first 
and  third.  As  late  as  when  John  6:  42  was 
written,  the  author  did  not  hesitate  to  put  into 
the  lips  of  the  people  such  confident  words  as 
these:  “Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph, 
whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ?  ” 

The  earliest  testimony  regarding  Jesus  comes 
to  us  from  St.  Paul.  In  Romans  1:3,  4,  he 
wrote  of  Jesus,  “  Born  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh,  who  was  declared  to  be  the 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


91 


Son  of  God  with  power,  according  to  the  spirit 
of  holiness,  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.” 
x4gain  (Romans  9:  5)  Christ  is  of  the  Israel¬ 
ites,  like  the  fathers,  “as  concerning  the  flesh.” 
In  all  the  strength  of  his  desire  to  elevate  Christ 
and  set  him  high  upon  the  throne  of  power, 
surely  Paul  would  have  used  any  story  of  a  super¬ 
natural  birth  that  he  might  hear  from  the  dis¬ 
ciples  with  whom  he  associated.  In  Gal.  4:  4 
he  writes  again  of  Jesus  as  “Born  of  a  woman, 
born  under  the  law,”  —  expressions  which  would 
hardly  have  been  used  if  Paul  had  heard  of  a 
supernatural  birth. 

Even  where  the  fact  of  the  virgin  birth  would 
have  added  greatest  weight  to  argument,  in  the 
Acts,  as  in  3:  22  ff.  and  10:  37  ff.,  no  mention 
whatever  is  made  of  it.  The  argument  from 
silence  is  never  a  wholly  satisfactory  one,  but  if 
it  ever  serves,  it  does  here,  especially  when  in  the 
instances  alluded  to  it  is  confirmed  by  the  utter 
silence  of  Jesus  himself  upon  the  subject  of  his 
birth.  Had  he  been  conscious  of  such  a  mirac¬ 
ulous  origin,  how  could  he  have  been  afflicted 
with  temptations,  or  overborne  by  sorrows,  or 
cast  down  by  the  thickening  of  the  fogs  about 
his  path?  How  could  he  have  failed  to  estab¬ 
lish  his  Sonship,  both  for  his  own  peace  of  mind 
and  as  an  unanswerable  argument  against  his 


92 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


enemies,  by  allusion  to  the  one  event  against 
which  no  mind  in  that  day  would  have  held  out  ? 
In  accordance  with  what  I  take  to  be  the  widest 
and  earliest  tradition,  then,  I  assume  that  Jesus 
was  born  of  a  mother  named  Mary,  in  the  home 
of  Joseph  the  carpenter  of  Nazareth,  his  father, 
wdio  died  while  Jesus  was  still  young.  It  was  not 
unlike  similar  homes  that  stand  to-day,  along 
the  rambling  streets  of  Syrian  towns,  of  one  or 
two  rooms;  low  and  meanly  furnished,  wherein 
all  the  household  arts  are  practised  and  all  the 
family  live  together,  with  little  privacy  and  no 
comfort.  The  boys  all  learned  a  trade,  and  in 
the  school  which  in  the  days  of  Jesus  was  placed 
hard  by  the  synagogue,  they  learned  to  read  and 
to  familiarize  themselves  with  certain  portions 
of  the  Scriptures.  In  the  synagogue  they  gath¬ 
ered  on  the  Sabbath  week  after  week  and  heard 
the  Law  and  the  Prophets  read  from  the  rolls  kept 
in  the  sacred  chest  and  handed  out  to  the  lead¬ 
ing  men  or  chance  visitors  from  abroad  that  they 
might  read  the  lesson  of  the  day. 

The  village  of  Nazareth  is  situated  in  its  deep 
and  quiet  valley  among  the  ridges  above  Jezreel, 
and  commands  a  noble  view  from  the  height  of 
land  behind  the  town.  Far  to  the  north  rise  the 
snowy  peaks  of  Hermon,  and  Tabor  opposite 
guards  the  fertile  Jordan  valley  below.  West- 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


93 


ward  stands  the  long  and  forest-covered  reach  of 
Carmel,  stretching  away  to  the  sea,  and  below 
it  lies  the  fertile  vallev,  as  rich  in  historic  asso- 
ciations  to  a  Jewish  child  as  in  its  fields  of  grain 
and  its  olive  trees.  “You  see  thirty  miles  in 
three  directions.”1  The  great  road  to  Jerusalem 
and  Egypt  lay  opposite  across  the  valley.  A 
journey  of  three  hours  brought  one  to  the  rich 
and  populous  city  of  Sepphoris.  The  princely 
Roman  residence  stood  beside  the  blue  sea  of 
Galilee  about  a  half  day’s  walk  from  Nazareth. 
The  most  flourishing  Roman  port  of  entry  was 
twenty  miles  away.  But  to  reach  the  holy  city, 
Jerusalem,  one  must  travel  for  three  days. 
Nazareth  had  doubtless  as  many  inhabitants  as 
now,  which  number  five  or  six  thousand.  It 
a.ppears  to  have  been  regarded  with  disfavor, 
almost  with  scorn,  although  no  reason  can  be 
found  for  such  a  prejudice. 

In  this  quiet  corner  of  Galilee  Jesus  grew, 
familiar  with  the  stress  of  poverty  and  the  grind 
of  toil,  and  developed  by  hard  work  in  physical 
strength  and  health.  His  parents  took  the  poor 
man’s  gift  to  offer  in  the  temple  when  in  pious 
fashion  they  brought  their  baby  boy  to  be  con¬ 
secrated  and  set  apart  as  a  member  of  the  Hebrew 

1  George  Adam  Smith,  the  Historical  Geography  of  the 
Holy  Land,  p.  433. 


94 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


race.  They  were  poor,  but  they  bore  the  lineage 
of  kings.  The  family  tradition  held  fast  to  the 
records  handed  down  from  of  old  to  prove  that 
in  Joseph’s  veins  flowed  the  blood  of  David’s 
line.  Jesus  had  brothers  and  sisters,  and  with 
them  he,  perhaps  the  eldest,  worked  to  help  his 
father,  and  later  to  keep  his  mother  from  the  too 
heavy  burdens  of  a  large  and  dependent  family. 
The  discipline  of  regular  toil,  of  bearing  burdens, 
of  sacrifice  for  others,  was  his  in  fullest  measure. 

“Heaven  lies  about  us  in  our  infancy,”  Words¬ 
worth  says.  But  he  suggests  that  it  is  soon  lost 
in  the  growing  boy,  and  earthly  experiences  take 
its  place.  How  much  of  heaven  did  Jesus  re¬ 
tain,  and  did  he  ever  lose  the  consciousness  of 
heaven  as  the  birthplace  of  his  soul?  Surely  we 
are  dealing  with  a  genuine  boy  as  we  seek  to 
trace  the  growth  of  this  child  of  Nazareth,  but 
unfortunately  we  are  compelled  to  reconstruct 
his  experiences  and  character  from  the  history 
of  the  man,  itself  all  too  brief.  He  must  have 
based  his  later  consciousness  of  Messiahship 
upon  a  strong  and  normal  self-consciousness,  or, 
as  Beyschlag  has  pointed  out,  he  would  have 
adopted  the  current  Messianic  conceptions  of 
his  age. 

Education  is  learning  to  fear  aright,  the  Greek 
philosopher  maintained.  It  was  during  these 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


95 


youthful  days  that  Jesus  learned  what  to  fear 
and  what  to  trust.  His  home  life  must  have 
taught  him  the  confidence  of  love,  and  given  him 
a  concept  of  fatherhood  which  made  the  fear  of 
God  no  terror-stirring  sentiment  in  his  breast, 
for  he  early  learned  to  call  God  Father.  Ideal¬ 
ized  and  monopolized  by  the  exigencies  of  the 
great  spiritual  need  in  those  who  were  denied 
an  entrance  through  a  human  Christ  to  the 
human  heart  of  God,  the  character  of  Mary, 
his  mother,  has  been  set  before  the  world  as  the 
embodiment  of  gentle  and  noble  womanhood. 
The  few  allusions  to  her  in  the  Gospels  suggest 
that  Jesus  did  not  inherit  qualities  from  her 
which  in  any  way  hindered  the  growth  in  him  of 
love  and  the  perfecting  of  the  law  of  kindness 
in  his  heart.  Sons  naturally  inherit  from  the 
mother  in  their  make-up,  and  in  this  ideal  rnater- 
nitv  the  law  was  not  broken. 

t / 

The  first  evidence  we  have  of  growing  charac¬ 
ter  in  Jesus  is  in  Luke  2 :  40 :  44  And  the  child  grew, 
and  waxed  strong,  becoming  full  of  wisdom: 
and  the  grace  of  God  was  upon  him.”  Although 
a  part  of  the  disputed  Gospel  of  the  infancy, 
the  fact  of  its  naturalness  leads  me  to  use  the 
passage.  It  is  similar  in  its  first  statement  to 
that  concerning  John  the  Baptist  in  the  pre¬ 
ceding  chapter.  In  fact,  the  phrase  ev  rw  TrvevfxaTi 


96 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


is  added  there,  which  is  not  weaker  than  the 
nXrjpovfxevov  <ro<£ia  here.  We  are  told  that  he  devel¬ 
oped  like  other  children,  and  that  he  learned  by 
degrees  not  only  the  common  things  of  life,  but, 
to  take  the  o-o<£ta  in  its  Hebrew  sense,  the  fear 
of  God  and  the  high  things  of  religion.  There 
is  a  suggestion  of  a  spirit  open  to  good,  seeking 
after  light  and  truth,  of  a  child-nature  simple 
and  pure,  of  which  it  can  be  said  “the  grace  of 
God  was  upon  him  ”  as  we  speak  of  such  a  child 
to-day. 

We  know  something  of  the  character  of  the 
brother  of  Jesus,  James  the  pillar  apostle  of  the 
church  in  Jerusalem,  and  wTe  can  infer  from  his 
more  commonplace  mind  of  what  sort  the  train¬ 
ing  was  to  which  both  were  subject  in  their  home 
in  Nazareth.  James  was  an  orthodox  Jew,  of 
the  strictest  sect  of  the  Pharisees,  punctilious 
and  formal.  He  had  been  taught  from  the 
Thorah  in  the  synagogue  school.  Writing  as 
well  as  reading  was  not  beyond  the  reach  of  these 
village  boys.  It  was  possible  to  read  in  private 
also  the  manuscripts  to  which  they  listened  at 
the  public  services  of  the  synagogue.  Thus  the 
law  and  the  prophets  were  more  or  less  familiar 
to  these  boys  in  Nazareth.  One  with  the  eager 
mind  of  Jesus  must  have  been  peculiarly  attracted 
to  these  ancient  documents  of  the  faith  of  his 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


97 


fathers,  and  every  occasion  to  listen  or  to  study 
must  have  been  improved  by  him. 

In  addition  to  Law  and  Prophets,  he  surely 
breathed  the  atmosphere  of  the  Book  of  Daniel, 
with  its  mysterious  symbolism  and  its  striking 
stories.  What  child  could  resist  it?  What 
earnest  soul  at  that  time  could  fail  to  revel  in  the 
rewards  that  came  to  the  young  princes  of  his 
own  blood  in  their  heroic  ventures  for  their 
religion  arid  their  God?  Through  that  door 
Jesus  entered  the  region  of  apocalyptic,  in  which 
his  people  for  five  generations  had  found  their 
highest  encouragement.  By  it  they  expressed 
their  loftiest  hopes,  and  they  maintained  intact 
all  that  was  left  to  them  of  the  old  sense  of  a 
living  inspiration  and  a  future  realization  of  all 
that  the  past  had  promised  but  not  fulfilled. 
There  the  Messianic  vision  was  forever  chang¬ 
ing,  forever  growing,  in  its  content,  and  yet 
never  fixing  upon  any  definite  and  settled  form. 

Messianism  was  in  full  possession  of  the  mind 
of  the  Pharisaic  element  when  Jesus  was  a  school¬ 
boy  in  Nazareth.  The  Pharisees  had  control 
of  the  schools  and  synagogues,  and  the  children 
were  instructed  in  their  way.  They  were  pa¬ 
triots,  and  they  felt  themselves  the  only  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  true  faith  in  the  midst  of  a 
crooked  and  time-serving  generation.  The 


98 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


prayer  they  taught  every  child  and  expected 
every  pious  Jew  to  say  thrice  each  day  reveals 
what  may  have  fallen  very  often  from  the  lips  of 
Jesus.  We  have  it  in  the  form  given  to  it  before 
110  a.d.,  under  the  title  “Shemoneh  Esreh”  or 
“Eighteen  Supplications.”  One  more  has  been 
added  since  the  name  was  given  to  the  prayer. 
A  few  of  the  petitions  are  as  follows:1 

Blessed  art  thou,  O  Lord,  our  God  and  the 
God  of  our  fathers,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the 
God  of  Isaac,  the  God  of  Jacob,  the  great  God, 
the  mighty  and  tremendous,  the  Most  High  God, 
who  bestowest  gracious  favors  and  createst 
all  things,  and  rememberest  the  piety  of  the 
patriarchs,  and  wilt  bring  a  redeemer  to  their 
posterity,  for  the  sake  of  Thy  name  in  love.  O 
King,  who  bringest  help  and  healing  and  art  a 
shield.  Blessed  art  thou,  O  Lord,  the  shield 
of  Abraham. 

Thou  art  mighty  forever,  O  Lord;  Thou  re- 
storest  life  to  the  dead,  Thou  art  mighty  to  save; 
who  sustainest  the  living  with  beneficence, 
quickenest  the  dead  with  great  mercy,  support¬ 
ing  the  fallen  and  healing  the  sick,  and  setting 
at  liberty  those  who  are  bound,  and  upholding 
Thy  faithfulness  unto  those  who  sleep  in  the 
dust.  Who  is  like  unto  Thee,  Lord,  the  Al¬ 
mighty  One;  or  who  can  be  compared  unto 
Thee,  O  King,  who  killest  and  makest  alive 

1  The  Jewish  people  in  the  Times  of  Jesus  Christ,  Schurer, 
Div.  II,  Vol.  II,  p.  85  ff . 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


99 


again,  and  causest  help  to  spring  forth?  And 
faithful  art  Thou  to  quicken  the  dead.  Blessed 
art  Thou,  O  Lord,  who  restorest  the  dead. 

Sound  with  the  great  trumpet  to  announce  our 
freedom;  and  set  up  a  standard  to  collect  our 
captives,  and  gather  us  together  from  the  four 
corners  of  the  earth.  Blessed  art  Thou,  O  Lord, 
who  gatherest  the  outcasts  of  Thy  people  Israel. 

O  restore  our  judges  as  formerly,  and  our 
counsellors  as  at  the  beginning;  and  remove 
from  us  sorrow  and  sighing;  and  reign  over  us, 
Thou  O  Lord  alone,  in  grace  and  mercy;  and 
justify  us.  Blessed  art  Thou,  O  Lord  the  King, 
for  Thou  lovest  Righteousness  and  justice. 

The  offspring  of  David  Thy  servant  speedily 
cause  to  flourish,  and  let  his  horn  be  exalted  in 
Thy  salvation;  for  Thy  salvation  do  we  hope 
daily.  Blessed  art  Thou,  O  Lord,  who  causest 
the  horn  of  salvation  to  flourish. 

We  praise  Thee,  for  Thou  art  the  Lord  our 
God  and  the  God  of  our  fathers  for  ever  and 
ever;  the  Rock  of  our  life,  the  Shield  of  our  sal¬ 
vation,  Thou  art  for  ever  and  ever.  We  will 
render  thanks  unto  Thee,  and  declare  Thy 
praise,  for  our  lives  which  are  delivered  into  Thy 
hand,  and  for  our  souls  which  are  deposited  with 
Thee,  and  for  Thy  miracles  which  daily  are 
with  us;  and  for  Thy  wonders  and  Thy  goodness, 
which  are  at  all  times,  evening  and  morning  and 
at  noon.  Thou  art  good,  for  Thy  mercies  fail 
not,  and  compassionate,  for  Thy  loving-kindness 
never  ceaseth;  our  hopes  are  for  ever  in  Thee. 
And  for  all  this  praised  and  extolled  be  thy  Name, 


100 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


our  King,  for  ever  and  ever.  And  all  that  live 
shall  give  thanks  unto  Thee  for  ever,  Selah,  and 
shall  praise  Thy  name  in  truth;  the  God  of  our 
salvation  and  our  aid  for  ever.  Selah.  Blessed 
art  Thou,  O  Lord,  for  all-bountiful  is  Thy  name, 
and  unto  thee  it  becometh  us  to  give  thanks. 

Great  salvation  bring  over  Israel  Thy  people 
for  ever,  for  Thou  art  King,  Lord  of  all  salvation. 
Praised  be  Thou,  Lord,  for  Thou  blessest  Thy 
people  Israel  with  salvation. 

Jesus  probably  did  not  read  any  of  the  Apoca¬ 
lyptic  Books,  but  he  heard  these  things  dis¬ 
cussed  in  the  gatherings  of  the  pious  leaders  of 
the  synagogue,  or  in  Jerusalem.  The  literature 
of  the  New  Testament  is  permeated  with  them. 
Charles  has  discovered  about  one  hundred  pas¬ 
sages  where  the  NewT  Testament  reminds  him  of 
the  book  of  Enoch  alone.  The  words  attributed 
to  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  are  by  no  means  foreign 
to  the  apocalyptic  thought  and  utterance,  as 
where  he  speaks  of  final  judgment,  the  woes  to 
come,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man,  rewards  and 
punishment,  evil  spirits,  angels. 

This  is  the  atmosphere  in  which  the  young 
man  of  Nazareth  grew.  How  much  of  the 
teaching  of  the  synagogue  and  school  and  cur¬ 
rent  discussion  did  he  absorb  and  accept  without 
a  question  ?  That  we  cannot  tell,  but  it  seems 
probable  that  all  the  mere  furniture  of  thought- 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


101 


forms  and  current  ideas  concerning  theology  on 
its  speculative  side  were  adopted  by  him  natu¬ 
rally,  while  he  changed  the  content  of  every  form 
and  filled  with  new  meaning  all  the  ideas  so 
commonly  handled  about  him.  Nothing  essen¬ 
tial  did  he  accept,  we  may  be  certain,  merely 
because  it  was  so  taught.  From  the  beginning, 
this  child,  who  grew  into  a  man  of  such  extraor¬ 
dinary  insight  and  strength  of  mind,  must  have 
found  the  well  of  pure  religious  feeling  in  him¬ 
self  so  copious  and  so  refreshing  that  the  flow  of 
it  outward  met  and  overmatched  the  inward 
currents  of  ideas  and  forms  of  thought.  He  took 
out  of  the  teaching  of  home  and  school  what  he 
could  appropriate,  and  left  the  rest,  as  every 
child  does,  but  what  he  took  was,  we  can  con¬ 
ceive,  the  spiritual  and  the  eternal,  while  the 
temporary  and  peculiar  was  adopted  only  as  a 
vehicle  for  service,  not  as  a  fixed  standard  of 
truth. 

The  Gospels  tell  us  of  his  journey  with  his 
parents  to  Jerusalem  at  his  twelfth  year,  to  be¬ 
come  a  citizen  and  to  take  his  place  in  the  reli¬ 
gious  system  of  his  race.  There  is  no  reason  for 
rejecting  the  tradition  in  all  its  beauty  and 
natural  simplicity.  Jesus  was  an  adolescent, 
and  the  eager  curiosity  of  that  period,  and  its 
love  of  argument,  were  his.  The  boy  was  so 


102 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


enamored  of  the  temple  and  the  atmosphere  of 
religion,  and  a  mighty  interest  in  spiritual  things 
so  possessed  his  mind,  that  he  forgot  his  duty  to 
his  parents  and  the  time  appointed  for  return  to 
Nazareth.  With  unfailing  energy,  the  magnet 
of  his  people’s  religious  center  held  him  fast, 
and  for  many  hours,  all  day  long,  he  listened  to 
the  men  who  discussed  the  Scriptures  and  ex¬ 
pounded  the  Law,  and  asked  them  questions 
which  they  may  have  found  it  difficult  to  answer 
in  the  way  of  their  profession.  In  their  turn  they 
questioned  him,  and  “all  that  heard  him  were 
astonished  at  his  understanding  and  answers.” 
His  parents  were  naturally  amazed,  for  how 
could  they  know  that  a  son  of  theirs  would  dare 
to  sit  among  the  rabbis  and  actually  discuss 
their  sacred  books,  wffiich  it  was  for  them  to 
obey  without  a  word?  And  when  the  mother- 
heart,  both  apologetic  to  the  learned  men  and 
mindful  of  her  own  great  anxiety,  spoke  a  word 
of  chiding  to  her  son,  he  made  answer  out  of  his 
new  world  of  thought  and  satisfied  religious 
sentiment,  as  if  in  greatest  surprise  that  they  did 
not  realize  that  there  was  only  one  place  in  all 
the  world  wffiere  they  might  have  known  he 
would  be,  engrossed  in  the  things  of  his  Father, 
—  in  his  Father’s  house.  They  did  not  under¬ 
stand  what  he  meant  by  calling  God  his  Father 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


103 


in  this  intimate,  personal  fashion.  They  had 
not  realized  until  now  how  deep  was  the  religious 
life  that  they  had  fostered  in  their  son.  With 
them  he  had  not  had  much  speech  about  these 
high  things.  Their  simple  minds  and  the 
parental  range  of  topics  had  precluded  that. 
From  this  time  forward  a  new  interest  in  the 
sacred  books  was  doubtless  apparent  in  Jesus, 
and  while  he  went  down  with  them  from  the 
temple,  “and  came  to  Nazareth,  and  was  sub¬ 
ject  unto  them,  and  increased  in  wisdom  and 
stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man,”  there 
was  something  different  in  the  boy  from  that 
day.  The  normal,  universal  change  which  we 
call  conversion  had  come  to  him,1  and  with 
fullest  effect  because  it  was  in  no  way  hampered 
or  resisted.  His  parents  watched  him  with  a 
growing  awe,  and  into  their  love  for  him  a  new 
tenderness  came,  as  he  discharged  so  perfectly 
the  household  duties  which  fell  to  his  hand. 
Their  dreams  of  the  future  took  on  shapes  of 
large  place  and  influential  leadership,  no  doubt, 
for  their  thoughtful  boy  who  was  so  full  of  the 
sense  of  God,  and  who  entered  with  such  eamest- 

Religion  has  no  other  function  than  to  make  this  change 
complete,  and  the  whole  of  morality  may  be  well  defined  as 
fife  in  the  interest  of  the  race,  for  love  of  God  and  love  of  man 
are  one  and  inseparable.”  Hall,  Adolescence,  Vol.  II,  p.  304. 


104 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


ness  into  every  religious  service.  How  should 
he  be  educated  ?  How  could  they  train  him  for  a 
learned  profession?  When  Joseph  died  and  left 
the  burden  of  support  of  the  family  upon  Mary 
and  Jesus,  the  possibility  of  such  a  course  was 
removed,  and  Mary  must  have  resigned  herself 
to  the  thought  that  her  son  could  never  be  more 
than  her  husband  had  been,  a  worker  in  wood  in 
their  own  quiet  village.  But  Jesus,  growing  into 
young  manhood,  fulfilled  every  duty  and  absorbed 
all  goodness  presented  to  him,  shaped  his  thoughts 
and  broadened  his  sympathies,  and  gave  himself 
in  his  quiet  life  to  meditation  and  prayer,  to  the 
discipline  -  of  service  and  the  weighing  of  truth 
as  he  found  it.  It  never  served  to  detract  from 
his  perfect  relation  to  his  Father  when  Jesus 
found  that  things  were  hidden  from  his  ken. 
Rather  in  the  exercise  of  faith  did  he  prove  the 
perfection  of  the  relation  he  professed. 

Jesus  may  be  styled  with  justice  the  typical 
adolescent.  His  pure  race-inheritance  and  his 
simple  life  assured  to  him  a  probable  period  of 
growth  slow  enough  and  long  enough  to  attain 
to  all  his  powers  of  body  and  of  mind  without 
stunting  or  premature  development.  He  had 
time  to  gain  a  full,  well-rounded  individuation. 
The  physical  passions,  held  in  check,  transferred 
their  forces  to  the  growth  of  soul  within  him ;  and 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


105 


his  psychic  life  was  enriched  by  the  freedom  he 
enjoyed  from  all  false  and  exhausting  stimula¬ 
tion  of  the  nerves  through  the  senses.1 

No  sympathetic  modern  student  can  accept 
the  conceptions  of  medieval  or  even  of  most 
modern  art  as  to  the  physical  appearance  of  Jesus. 
He  was  a  workman,  and  had  a  workman’s  body, 
large  and  strong.  He  was  a  leader  of  men,  not 
an  ascetic  nor  an  apologetic  weakling.  He 
appealed  to  men  and  women,  both,  with  power. 
He  could  not  have  been  an  effeminate  person, 
but  must  have  had  elements  of  manly  beauty, 
in  spite  of  the  inferences  often  improperly  drawn 
from  the  prophetic  words  regarding  Israel  in 
Isaiah  (53 :  2).  If  he  was  “  a  man  of  sorrows  ” 
it  was  because  he  ministered  to  sorrow  every¬ 
where  the  antidote  of  a  joyous,  sunny  nature 
that  dwelt  in  serenity  and  exalted  peace.  His 
will  was  strong,  compelling  men  and  shaping 
circumstances.  He  had  that  lavishness  of  sense 
which  implies  great  capacity  for  pleasure  or  for 
pain,  for  joy  or  for  sorrow,  with  the  eager  spon- 
taneitv  of  thought  which  belongs  to  such  a  nature. 

1  “  True  religion  is  normally  the  slowest  because  the  most 
comprehensive  kind  of  growth,  and  the  entire  ephebic  decade 
is  not  too  long  and  is  well  spent  if  altruism  or  love  of  all  that 
is  divine  and  human  comes  to  assured  supremacy  over  self 
before  it  is  ended.  Later  adolescence  merges  the  lower  into 
the  higher  social  self.”  —  Hall,  Adolescence,  Vol.  II,  p.  304. 


106 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


This  afforded  him  quick  sympathies,  ready  in¬ 
sight,  and  power  to  teach  and  lead. 

Two  influences  were  always  strong  in  shaping 
the  character  of  the  Nazarene.  He  had  a  de¬ 
voted  mother,  to  whom  he  held  the  closest  rela¬ 
tion  even  to  the  end.  She  was  a  deeply  religious 
and  mystical  nature,  cherishing  in  her  heart  all 
that  occurred  of  unusual  significance  in  the 
history  of  her  boy  (Luke  2:  5l).  John  Milton 
assumes  to  interpret  her  influence  as  remembered 
by  her  son: 

‘These  growing  thoughts  my  mother  soon  perceiving 
By  words  at  times  cast  forth,  inward  rejoiced, 

And  said  to  me  apart,  ‘High  are  thy  thoughts, 

O  son:  but  nourish  them  and  let  them  soar 
To  what  height  sacred  virtue  and  true  worth 
Can  raise  them,  though  above  example  high.’” 

The  feminine  virtues  of  patience  and  steadfast 
endurance  she  instilled  into  his  mind,  with  the 
grace  of  gentleness  and  the  active  principle  of 
love.  The  habit  of  prayer  and  the  household 
faith  and  knowledge  of  the  Law  doubtless  grew 
up  about  her  centralizing  and  inspiring  presence. 
Boys  should  normally  inherit  from  their  mothers. 
Consciousness  of  the  fact  has  had  something  to 
do  with  the  reverence  paid  to  Mary  by  the  ages 
of  Christian  practise  and  Christian  aspiration. 

Another  formative  influence  in  the  shaping  of 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


107 


the  character  of  Jesus  lay  in  nature,  spread  about 

him  everywhere  where  the  hand  of  man  had  not 
*/ 

covered  it  deep  with  his  contrivances.  The 
Hebrew  mind  was  peculiarly  susceptible  to  nature. 
The  Psalms  are  almost  like  a  collection  of  nature 
songs  and  hymns  and  lyrics.  All  that  is  ma¬ 
jestic  in  mountain,  sea  and  forest,  in  the  deep 
and  populous  skies  and  the  majestic  storm,  in 
sun  and  star,  in  light  and  darkness,  —  all  finds  an 
appreciation  in  the  Psalms.  Job  revels  in  the 
larger  aspects  of  it.  Jerusalem  is  praised  for 
the  beauty  of  her  situation,  the  joy  of  the  whole 
earth,  with  the  mountains  round  about  her. 
Nazareth,  itself  probably  not  preeminent  for 
beauty,  lay  in  a  region  of  fertile  fields  and  sunny 
hills,  of  varied  landscape  and  far  glimpses  of 
mountains  and  plains  and  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan.  Every  sensitive  soul,  awake  to  the 
voices  of  the  spirit,  knows  how  full  of  significance 
all  nature  is.  In  silence  the  soul  drinks  it  in, 
and  alone  upon  the  hilltops  or  basking  in  the 
sun,  long  dreams  come  flocking  to  the  growing 
boy  upon  which  his  imagination  feeds.  He  gains 
the  power  of  sympathy  with  nature  where  there 
is  nothing  that  can  come  between  him  and  its 
fresh,  close  touch,  until  he  comes  by  a  sort  of 
absorption  to  know  her  secrets  and  to  be  con¬ 
fident  in  her  presence  and  to  be  refreshed  by  her 


108 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


strong  grasp.  In  those  days  of  his  early  youth 
Jesus  learned  the  way  to  nature,  and  began  that 
communion  which  becomes  one  of  the  greatest 
comforts  to  the  weary  heart  and  the  doorway  into 
the  upper  rooms  of  life  where  God  sits  serene 
and  approachable,  whatever  may  occur  below 
and  without.  Jesus  traveled  that  road  frequently 
throughout  the  close,  crowded  days  of  his  active 
ministry,  and  gathered  to  his  soul  refreshment 
in  the  fields  where  he  walked  alone  with  God, 
or  on  the  mountainsides  in  prayer.  He  must 
have  known  for  a  long  time 

“The  ancient  teachers  never  dumb 
Of  Nature’s  unhoused  lyceum.” 

“Himself  to  Nature’s  heart  so  near, 

That  all  her  voices  in  his  ear 
Of  beast  or  bird  had  meanings  clear.” 

The  influence  of  nature  upon  all  religious 
souls  is  deep  and  constant.  Not  only  to  get  away 
from  men,  but  also  to  be  in  touch  with  the  liv¬ 
ing  cloak  of  the  earth  which  seems  to  lie  close 
about  God,  the  “religious”  have  been  inclined 
to  live  apart  in  country  places  and  usually  amid 
great  beauty  or  under  the  spell  of  vastness  and 
grandeur,  by  the  sea  or  among  desert  sands  or  in 
the  mountains.  Amos,  the  prophet,  brought 
something  of  the  spirit  of  the  landscape  and  its 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


109 


effect  upon  his  soul  to  Bethel  when  he  made  his 
solemn  protest  against  the  royal  luxury  and  the 
license  of  them  that  forget  God.  Nature  pic¬ 
tures  stand  out  like  illustrations  all  through  his 
prophecies.  Elijah  found  his  home  on  Carmel, 
whose  rugged  rocks  comport  with  his  character. 
Ezekiel  owes  much  to  the  river  Chebar  by  which 
he  dwelt,  and  the  psalmists  reveled  in  nature’s 

every  mood. 

« / 

The  baptism  of  Jesus  by  John  the  Baptist  was 
a  crisis  in  his  life  second  to  none  hitherto.  His 
yearning  spirit,  searching  everywhere  for  food, 
assimilating  all  that  came  to  him  of  nourishment 
wherever  found,  rejecting  whatever  was  not 
according  to  experience,  and  using  with  perfect 
freedom  all  that  might  serve  as  a  temporary 
vehicle  of  thought  or  emotion,  went  out  to  the 
various  teachers  and  preachers  who  came  into 
Galilee  or  whom  he  found  in  his  annual  visits  at 
the  time  of  feasts  in  Jerusalem.  Little  did  he 
find  that  was  new  or  stimulating  in  them  or  their 
message.  It  was  without  authority,  hollow,  dry 
and  formal.  He  gives  evidence  of  some  com¬ 
munication  with  the  Essenes,  as  with  the  Phari¬ 
sees,  but  the  one  as  much  as  the  other  missed  the 
real  content  of  life,  and  failed  to  stir  his  soul. 

In  his  constant  spiritual  alertness,  the  teaching 
of  John  the  Baptist  drew  him  to  the  great  preacher 


110 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


of  repentance  by  the  Jordan.  How  long  he 
listened  to  him,  what  relations  were  established 
between  them  of  sympathy  or  possibly  of  blood, 
as  the  tradition  brought  down  to  us  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel  suggests,  we  can  never  know.  There  is 
evidence  of  acquaintance  given  in  the  description 
of  the  act  when  he  too  was  baptized  and  took 
up  as  his  own  the  message  of  repentance.  Here 
was  one  soul  that  spoke  from  deeper  human  needs 
than  the  scribes.  Here  was  one  who  understood 
him  better  than  any  one  else  had  ever  done.  The 
realities  of  life  were  spiritual  to  him  also.  They 
found  so  much  in  common  that  it  became  a  ques¬ 
tion  with  John  whether  his  disciple  was  not  rather 
his  master.  Jesus  gave  himself  to  the  cult  un¬ 
reservedly,  however,  and  insisted  that  he  should 
be  baptized  by  John  as  every  other  convinced 
follower  was.  It  was  his  opportunity,  long 
awaited,  to  attach  himself  to  an  active  movement 
and  make  known  the  purpose  long  ripening  in 
his  heart,  to  serve  the  nation  and  the  wmrld. 
His  family  did  not  suspect  his  high  calling,  and 
later  even  tried  to  dissuade  him  from  it;  but  it 
was  the  beginning  of  life  to  him,  after  a  long 
preparation  (Mark  3:  21,  31). 

What  the  rite  of  baptism  meant  to  him  can  be 
understood  only  as  we  learn  what  it  meant  to  the 
average  Jew,  and  then  judge  what  it  must  mean 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


111 


to  one  so  full  of  the  spirit  of  life  as  Jesus  was. 
Baptism  was  no  new  rite  among  his  people. 
The  purifying  bath  of  the  entire  body  in  a  run¬ 
ning  stream,  or  at  least  in  cold  water,  was  the 
recognized  form  for  ending  ceremonial  unclean¬ 
ness.1  This  symbolic  action  had  become  in 

«/ 

itself  of  value  as  a  restoration  to  covenant  rights. 
The  proselyte  had  to  submit  to  baptism  as  a  con¬ 
dition  of  Jewish  recognition.  The  Pharisees, 
in  accordance  with  their  common  way  of  treat¬ 
ing  the  Law,  had  accommodated  the  symbol  and 
reduced  it  to  a  pouring  of  water  over  the  hands 
before  eating.2  The  general  significance  of  bap¬ 
tism  was  one  of  ceremonial  purification,  and  full 
or  fresh  participation  in  the  covenant  relations 
of  Israel  with  God.  It  was  a  symbol  used  even 
with  dishes  and  furniture  (Mark  7 :  4),  and  was 
exceedingly  common  to  the  Jew. 

o  J 

John  the  Baptist  evidently  was  not  content 
with  the  hollow  form  of  baptism.  He  meant 
something  more  by  it  than  ceremonial  cleansing 
from  any  possible  stain  of  touch  or  forbidden 
association  according  to  the  Law.  He  meant 
an  inner  purification,  a  change  of  spirit,  a  renewal 
of  relations  with  God  in  the  very  heart  of  man. 
Only  he  who  wanted  that  and  would  agree  to 

1  Num.  19:  11  ff.;  31:  19;  Isa.  1:  16;  Zech.  13:  1  and 
Ezek.  36:  25 ff.  2  Mark.  7:  3;  Luke  11:  38. 


112 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


seek  for  it  was  welcomed  to  Lis  baptism.  The 
rite  of  John  looked  backward  to  an  unworthy 
past.  The  emphasis  he  put  upon  repentance  as 
its  prime  condition  met  the  needs  of  every  sinful 
soul.  Did  it  meet  the  need  of  Jesus  ?  Was  he 
too  needing  to  repent  ?  Or  did  he  submit  himself 
as  one  who  welcomed  any  spiritual  propaganda, 
who  saw  in  John  and  his  message  the  very  voice  he 
had  been  longing  for?  Jesus  surely,  if  he  was  the 
youth  we  have  described,  had  no  need  of  repent¬ 
ance.  He  attached  himself  to  John  irresistiblv, 
inevitably,  as  to  the  one  lofty  and  effective  spirit¬ 
ual  cause  among  the  people.  If  he  had  already 
in  his  heart  a  great  desire  to  tell  men  what  he 
had  found  in  his  personal  experience  with  God, 
as  he  surely  must  have  had,  then  John  became  to 
him  the  sure  and  necessary  preparer  of  his  way, 
to  fit  men  everywhere  to  hear  his  message  of  a 
life  of  sonship  to  God,  and  baptism  was  the 
significant  door  of  entrance  into  the  new  relation. 
With  unerring  judgment  Jesus  made  himself 
a  part  of  the  current  popular  movement,  and  in 
no  great  humility,  but  rather  in  deepest  devotion 
and  with  lofty  enthusiasm,  he  entered  into  the 
waters  and  received  baptism  at  the  hands  of 
John.  But  that  very  act  decided  him  that  he 
could  never  adopt  such  a  symbol  as  his  own 
peculiar  deed.  He  never  himself  baptized.  The 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


113 


rite  he  did  adopt,  to  be  administered  by  others, 
not  by  himself,  lest  he  seem  to  be  another  John 
and  his  mission  that  of  a  prophet,  marking  all 
with  his  own  peculiar  ceremony.  He  took  the 
rite  and  universalized  it,  as  he  did  so  many  other 
formal  acts,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples  for  its 
spiritual,  not  its  ceremonial,  significance.  He 
added  to  it  elements  that  lifted  it  out  of  the  place 
to  which  John  had  elevated  it,  and  made  Chris¬ 
tian  baptism  significant  of  a  process  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  That  fact  has  its  bearings  upon  the 
question  what  it  meant  for  Jesus  to  be  baptized 
by  John.  With  him  it  looked  forward  rather 
than  backward,  upward  rather  than  downward, 
and  away  from  self  to  God. 

This  act  of  Jesus  was  not  taken  without  con¬ 
templation.  He  made  it  a  step  toward  larger 
things  beyond.  Did  he  remember  that  conse¬ 
cration  to  the  kingly  office  was  effected  by  his 
people  with  the  baptismal  act  (1  Sam.  16:  13), 
and  through  it  gather  to  himself  new  power  in  a 
deeper  consciousness  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  ? 
He  did  not  mean  to  join  himself  to  John  as  a 
follower  of  his.  They  had  doubtless  talked  of 
that  before,  and  John  was  reconciled  to  have 
this  man,  whom  he  felt  to  be  so  much  more  truly 
fitted  for  service  to  the  nation  than  he  could  be, 
increase  while  he  decreased.  He  gave  his  dis- 


114 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


ciples  up  to  him  when  they  were  ready  for  the 
higher  leadership,  and  only  kept  about  him  those 
for  whom  his  message  seemed  better  adapted 
as  a  preparation  for  the  fuller  gospel  of  his 
friend.  But  even  he  was  not  prepared  for  the 
exaltation  in  which  Jesus  received  the  rite.  The 
novitiate  was  taken  out  of  himself,  and  wrapt  in 
vision  which  he  afterward  described  as  seeing 
heaven  opened  and  hearing  a  voice  calling  him 
the  beloved  Son  of  God.  At  the  same  time 
Jesus  saw  in  his  vision  as  it  were  a  dove  bearing 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  to  rest  upon 
him  forevermore.  Many  great  men  have  had 
these  intense  psychoses  at  times  of  unusual 
excitement.  Evidently  the  consecration  of  his 
future  life  was  involved  in  that  ceremony  of  his 
baptism,  and  increased  its  significance  mightily 
to  him.  He  did  not  tell  his  disciples  about  his 
visions  in  order  to  gain  authority  over  them,  but 
only  in  the  intimate  sharing  with  them  of  his 
deepest  experiences. 

Mark  had  a  more  subtle  understanding  of  the 
growth  of  the  self-consciousness  of  Jesus  than  the 
early  Church  in  the  dogmatic  stress  of  reflection 
could  acquire.  Mark  was  right  in  discovering 
the  beginning  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  at  the 
baptism,  rather  than  at  the  ascension  where  the 
writer  of  Acts  (2:  36)  conceives  it  to  originate. 


THE  YOUTH  OF  JESUS 


115 


Jesus  knew  himself  from  this  time  on,  not  in 
ecstatic  rapture,  but  in  sound,  sane  ways,  and  in 
profound  conviction,  as  the  Son  of  God,  par 
excellence.  Here  was  the  turning-point  of  his 
life.  A  new  field,  untried,  untrodden  by  any 
other  foot,  as  much  beyond  that  in  which  John 
had  done  so  much  to  arouse  the  people  as 
John  was  above  all  other  voices  of  the  day, 
awaited  him,  and  he  faced  it  alone  with  God. 
Is  it  strange  that  he  saw  visions  and  showed  him¬ 
self  exalted  in  his  spirit?  Thus  he  passed  on 
from  John,  led  by  forces  stronger  than  himself, 
up  to  the  wilderness,  to  meet  and  wrestle  with 
the  pressing  practical  questions  of  his  future 
way. 

These  are  the  materials  for  growth  which  the 
mind  and  spirit  of  Jesus  found,  and  which 
served  to  feed  his  soul  with  the  ideals  of  the 
Messianic  office.  He  did  not  reach  his  conscious¬ 
ness  of  the  call  of  God  by  pure  thinking,  nor  did 
he  search  out  the  Old  Testament  ideals  and 
adjust  his  life  to  them.  Had  he  tried  to  reason 
out  the  matter  in  logical  course,  he  would  have 
adopted  totally  different  methods,  and  the  result 
would  have  been  a  repetition  of  the  failures  that 
are  forgotten.  Logic  told  him  that  he  was  not, 
and  could  never  be,  the  Messiah,  nor  anything 
more  than  a  religious  reformer  like  John.  His 


116 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


faith  in  his  mission  sprang  from  deeper  depths, 
and  was  the  very  current  of  his  life.1  It  was 
faith  in  himself  and  in  God.  He  himself  must 
unfold  as  God  gave  him  opportunity;  and  in  per¬ 
fect  confidence,  seeing  only  a  little  way  ahead, 
he  entered  upon  his  career. 

1  Matt.  11:  28ff.;  12:  28;  Mark  1:  10;  3:  27;  Luke  4: 
18ff.;  10:  18f;  11:  20;  12:  10. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  TEMPTATION 

Whatever  his  preparation  had  been  for  the 
Messianic  role  when  he  came  to  the  baptism  of 
John,  one  thing  Jesus  did  not  once  think  to 
realize,  and  that  was  the  common  conception  of 
an  apocalyptic  Messiah.  His  studies  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  his  discussion  of  the  current  Pharisaic  ideal, 
must  have  led  him  to  formulate  definite  ideas 
about  that.  His  entire  temper  of  mind  and 
his  attitude  toward  life  determined  his  course 
with  reference  to  the  more  violent  and  drastic 
phases  of  that  popular  dream.  He  surely  did 
have  at  some  time  a  definite  belief  in  his  Messi¬ 
anic  mission;  even  students  of  the  school  of 
Strauss  and  Renan  agree  that  this  is  indisputable. 
He  called  men  to  share  with  him  a  new  ethico- 
religious  sonship  to  God,  and  that  call  on  Jewish 
lips  involved  a  Messianic  consciousness.  His 
office  he  recognized,  expanded,  and  exalted,  or 
the  entire  gospel  story  is  misleading. 

The  Temptation  is  typical  of  experiences  which 
must  have  extended  through  weeks  and  months 


117 


118 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


when  he  was  facing  the  question  of  the  formula¬ 
tion  of  his  ideals  and  the  adoption  of  methods 
for  realizing  them.  He  must  have  come  to  the 
conviction,  long  before,  that  he  was  a  chosen 
messenger  of  God,  and  in  subjecting  himself  to 
the  baptism  of  John  he  became  convinced  that 

he  was  the  true  Messiah.  The  familiar  svmbols 

%/ 

of  the  dove  and  the  voice,  more  familiar  to  a 
Jew  in  such  a  connection  than  to  us,  are  what  we 
might  expect  him  to  employ  in  speaking  of  his 
call.  The  current  ideas  of  the  method  of  ful¬ 
filling  such  a  calling  as  God  opened  up  to  him 
were  diverse  and  far  from  clear  in  their  expression. 
He  had  spent  thirty  years  of  life  in  coming  up  to 
this  hour,  in  meditation  and  studv  and  observa- 
tion,  and  the  quiet  practise  of  a  life  of  gentle 
godliness.  He  had  lived  much  alone.  He  had 
found  the  comfort  of  nature.  He  knew  how  to 
enter  into  the  closest  fellowship  with  his  Father 
in  the  unsullied  environment  of  his  handiwork. 
Now  the  greatness  of  his  task  confronts  him,  and 
he  feels  his  need  of  counsel  and  support.  For 
this  the  Spirit  drives  him  into  the  wilderness. 
Some  such  retreat  every  great  soul  must  make 
now  and  then,  where  he  can  recall  the  past  and 
sift  it  through  the  narrower  present  view,  and 
thus  produce  the  material  from  which  the  future 
must  be  built.  “  The  secret  of  man  is  the  secret 


THE  TEMPTATION 


119 


of  the  Messiah,”  the  schoolmen  used  to  say. 
The  spirit  drives  us  all  into  the  wilderness.  A 
sojourn  there  belongs  to  human  conflict.  It  has 
a  place  in  normal  human  experience.  Not  only 
for  the  sorrows  and  disappointments  and  the 
doubts  and  uncertainties  of  life,  but  also  in  the 
hour  of  success  and  under  highest  stimulus  of 
opportunity,  the  soul  must  stand  aside  and  get 
its  poise  and  seek  a  perspective  of  its  tasks.  And 
most  of  all  when  the  privilege  before  one  is  a 
moral  opportunity,  there  must  be  this  chance  to 
withdraw  from  the  real  into  the  ideal,  from  the 
practical  into  the  underlying  principles,  from 
the  strife  and  commotion  of  doing  into  the  calm¬ 
ness  and  assurance  of  being.  But  before  this 
can  be  reached,  the  soul  must  fight  its  battle  with 
the  Tempter,  and  hold  undiminished  its  full 
supply  of  moral  energy  and  moral  purpose.  He 
who  does  that  will  find  at  length  that  angels 
come  and  minister  unto  him. 

Every  great  religious  leader  has  had  his  time 
of  temptation  when  he  has  retreated  into  the 
wilderness  and  fought  his  battle  through  alone 
with  God.  Zaruthustra  was  tempted  by  the 
evil  spirit  which  besought  him  to  renounce  the 
good  law,  and  so  gain  power  over  the  nations. 
Buddha  won  his  confidence  thus,  and  so  did 
Mohammed.  Confucius  spent  three  years  in 


120 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


isolation  before  his  life-work  began.  The  im¬ 
mense  consequences  hanging  on  the  fate  of  a  single 
man,  and  upon  the  method  of  his  activity  as  a 
teacher  of  religion,  would  drive  any  son  of  God 
apart  for  a  season.  The  experience  of  Jesus  in 
the  wilderness  was  normal  and  significant.  The 
intensity  of  the  spirit  of  the  teacher  will  always  be 
the  gage  of  the  power  of  his  struggle  in  the  spirit, 
as  he  clears  his  mind  and  prepares  his  entire 
being  for  the  work  before  him.  The  clarity  of  his 
vision  of  God  will  likewise  regulate  the  momen¬ 
tousness  of  the  conflict  into  which  he  will  enter. 

This  retreat  of  Jesus  served  him  somewhat  as 
the  sojourn  of  Saul  of  Tarsus  in  Arabia  served 
him  a  few  years  later.  It  was  a  period  of  read¬ 
justment.  It  was  a  time  for  measuring  the  past 
and  gathering  its  permanent  values,  as  well  as 
a  season  for  making  plans  for  future  action.  It 
gave  to  Jesus  an  opportunity  similar  to  that  pro¬ 
vided  by  so  many  primitive  peoples  in  the  search 
for  a  totem,  on  which  errand  every  boy  is  sent 
before  he  enters  into  manhood  and  undertakes 
the  serious  business  of  his  life  in  the  tribe.  The 
guardian  spirit  who  is  to  preside  over  his  des¬ 
tinies  comes  to  the  youth  in  solitude.  He  fasts,  he 
prays,  he  lives  in  nature’s  full  simplicity  until  he 
knows  the  form  in  which  God  will  walk  with  him,1 
1  See  Hall,  Adolescence,  Vol.  II,  chap.  XIII. 


THE  TEMPTATION 


121 


The  need  is  as  deep  as  religion.  It  is  common 
to  all  men,  as  religion  is.  But  not  all  respond  to 
the  need  and  seek  to  satisfy  it.  A  nature  of  such 
depth  and  capacity  for  spiritual  emotion  as  that 
which  Jesus  possessed  could  not  fail  to  seek,  not 
indeed  a  totem,  but  that  for  which  the  totem  stood 
to  minds  less  trained  in  the  knowledge  of  God  — 
the  complete  sense  of  the  cooperation  of  God 
himself  with  him  in  all  the  momentous  under¬ 
takings  upon  which  he  was  about  to  enter. 

Jesus  was  subject  to  mental  visions  through¬ 
out  his  life.  Not  only  at  his  baptism,  but  in  the 
wilderness,  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  in 
Gethsemane,  and  in  every  crisis  of  his  life  he 
saw  with  the  inner  eye  the  realities  of  his  faith 
and  held  communion  with  God.  He  frequently 
retreated  into  quiet  valleys  among  the  mountains 
or  upon  lonely  peaks,  and  beside  the  sea,  to  bring 
his  mind  into  the  atmosphere  of  heaven.  He 
was  often  agitated  under  wrath  or  in  performing 
miracles,  as  if  in  touch  with  unseen  forces  which 
stirred  within  him.  But  always  and  everywhere 
these  forces  were  ordered  under  his  control,  and 
prepared  him  for  fuller  power  by  their  touch 
with  his  soul.  Cahn  and  full  of  peace,  he  drew 
assurance  from  his  conflicts  and  entered  deeper 
into  the  fellowship  with  God  with  every  struggle. 
He  was  true  to  his  humanity  in  such  experiences, 


122 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


but  never  commonplace  in  the  way  in  which  he 
grew  bv  them.  There  was  no  study  of  incanta- 
tions  or  exorcismal  formulas  in  his  mind,  such 
as  the  Persian  cult  required  in  long  fasts,  nor 
anything  like  the  assault  upon  Gautama  by  the 
three  daughters  of  the  demon,  Craving,  Dis¬ 
content,  and  Lust.  His  struggle  was  with  his 
own  spiritual  self. 

The  replies  of  Jesus  to  the  three  temptations 
as  preserved  to  us  reveal  his  attitude  toward  the 
work  before  him.1  These  temptations  represent 
the  three  phases  of  Messianism  as  it  confronted 
him,  and  therefore  the  very  questions  that  he 
had  to  meet.  The  first  temptation  stands  for 
the  demand  of  selfish  materialism,  like  that  of 
the  Roman  rabble  later  on  when  they  called  for 
bread  and  amusement.  It  was  the  demand  upon 
God  of  privilege  as  the  right  of  his  Son.  It 
echoed  the  Jewish  call  for  an  immediate  and  ma¬ 
terial  provision  against  suffering  and  want.  It 
was  the  intense  and  insistent  demand  of  the  hu¬ 
man  being  in  him,  bidding  him  live  for  himself, 
and  justifying  that  course  by  his  high  office. 
And  it  came  to  him  in  the  insinuating  phrase  of 

1  “The  whole  temptation  in  the  wilderness  is  simply  a 
victory  of  the  moral  consciousness  over  the  religion  of  physical 
prodigy.”  —  A.  Sabatier,  Outlines  of  a  Philosophy  of  Re¬ 
ligion,  p.  73. 


THE  TEMPTATION 


123 


possible  doubt.  It  suggested  that  he  ought  to 
be  independent  of  God  his  Father,  as  the 
Messiah.  It  suggested  that  he  ought  to  have 
privileges  which  other  men  do  not  enjoy.  Thus 
this  temptation  placed  before  him  his  relations 
to  both  God  and  man,  as  well  as  to  nature  in 
which  he  walked.  Should  he  isolate  himself? 
Should  he  fail  in  that  perfect  dependence  in  which 
he  had  learned  to  live  with  his  Father?  Should 
he  let  any  use  of  his  power  and  position  come  in 
between  him  and  the  men  he  so  longed  to  con¬ 
vince  of  the  reasonableness  of  his  life  as  the 
normal  life  ?  Should  he  permit  himself  to  take 
a  place  outside  of  nature,  and  over  against  it, 
by  commanding  it  to  serve  him  exceptionally  ? 
To  each  of  these  suggestions  he  had  one  answer. 
Had  he  allowed  a  selfish  thought  to  come  in  be¬ 
tween  himself  and  God,  then  his  strength  would 
have  departed  from  him.  Had  he  removed  him¬ 
self  from  the  fullest  identity  with  mankind,  he 
could  never  have  been  their  Elder  Brother.  Had 
he  taken  a  place  over  against  nature,  as  a  sovereign 
Lord  whose  least  caprice  it  must  serve,  he  could 
never  have  found  it  the  same  House  of  God  for 
his  jaded  soul  that  it  had  been  in  the  past,  nor 

would  he  ever  have  been  able  to  lay  such  con- 

«/ 

fident  hands  upon  its  forces  in  his  ministry  as  he 
so  often  did.  Jesus  rose  above  the  physical  and 


124 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


dwelt  serenely  in  the  spiritual  realm,  where  even 
the  inconveniences  of  the  body  were  remote  to 
him.  He  kept  faith  with  God  and  man,  and 
held  himself  unswervingly  to  the  simplicity  of 
his  human  life.  The  apocalyptic  visions  of  his 
people  warranted  another  course,  but  he  yielded 
not  an  inch  along  their  path.  He  would  not  take 
even  his  body  into  his  own  keeping,  but  left  him¬ 
self  altogether  in  the  hands  of  God.  His  trust 
was  in  his  Father,  and  with  serenity  and  peace 
he  waited  upon  the  spiritual  interests  involved 
in  his  opening  career. 

With  that  quick  suggestion  of  opposites  so 
often  noticed  by  all  who  carry  on  the  strife  after 
higher  things,  the  second  temptation  jumps  to 
the  spiritual  ground  upon  which  the  victory  has 
been  won.  As  the  story  is  told  in  St.  Matthew, 
he  is  urged  to  take  a  short  cut  to  power,  and  to 
gratify  at  the  same  time  both  the  popular  desire 
for  a  sensation,  and  his  own  great  faith  in  God. 
To  cast  himself  down  from  the  temple  top  would 
convince  the  crowd.  It  would  compel  them  to 
believe  on  him  and  satisfy  some  of  the  expected 
requirements  of  the  typical  Messiah.  Many  had 
said  that  he  would  come  suddenly.  What  could 
be  more  startling  than  such  a  coming  as  that  into 
public  view  ?  And  many  too  had  prophesied 
that  he  would  be  a  supernatural  person  from 


THE  TEMPTATION 


125 


heaven.  Could  there  be  a  better  launching  of 
his  projected  Messiahship  than  this  spectacular 
appearance?  Again  there  was  the  noble  test  of 
faith  in  the  eternal  care  of  the  Father.  Such  a 
casting  of  himself  upon  his  mercies  could  not  fail 
to  show  how  closely  he  was  bound  to  God. 

Just  these  relations  to  both  God  and  man,  and 
to  his  own  self,  he  could  not  assume.  To  de¬ 
mand  of  God  a  merely  arbitrary  supervision  of 
his  destiny,  like  that,  was  sure  to  break  forever 
the  closer  bond  that  bound  him  to  his  Father. 
To  make  himself  not  one  of  the  simple  sons 
of  man,  but  an  exceptional,  wonder-breathing 
character,  aloof,  awesome,  inhuman,  was  to 
make  impossible  forever  the  close  relations  of 
human  brotherhood  and  moral  sympathy  by 
which  he  knew  already  that  his  Kingdom  must 
come.  Such  a  coming  would  preclude  the 
possibility  of  his  ever  teaching  men  the  way  of 
love,  and  bringing  them  into  sonship  like  his  own 
to  the  common  Father.  He  sought  not  to  con¬ 
vince  the  senses,  but  the  consciences,  of  men. 
He  had  no  desire  to  set  himself  above  them,  but 
every  interest  in  keeping  as  close  as  possible  to 
common  human  beings.  To  cut  himself  off  from 
humanity  was  not  his  way  of  ascent  to  divinity, 
but  to  live  a  perfect  human  life.  He  could  no 
more  adopt  the  spectacular  method  of  so  much 


126 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


of  the  apocalyptic  speculations  than  he  could 
serve  his  appetite  and  deliver  himself  from  in¬ 
convenience  through  his  new  and  absorbing  con¬ 
sciousness  of  power. 

There  was  another  common  demand  of  the 
people  upon  their  Messianic  ideal.  They  felt 
the  shame  of  their  national  dependence  and  the 
bitterness  of  political  subjection  to  people  whom 
they  despised  and  looked  upon  as  usurpers  of 
their  rights.  The  Messiah  they  looked  for  was 
to  deliver  them  by  a  stretched-out  arm.  He 
was  to  bear  the  sword.  Worldly  power  alone 
could  deliver  Israel,  and  armies  well  equipped 
must  follow  the  Daviaic  king.  They  knew  some¬ 
thing  of  world  powers.  If  Israel  were  to  subju¬ 
gate  them  all,  even  if  she  were  to  avenge  herself 
of  the  Roman  tyranny,  she  must  be  like  Rome. 
The  earthly  powers  must  serve  the  heavenly  King. 

This  conception  Jesus  steadfastly  refused  to 
consider.  A  Kingdom  indeed  he  will  establish, 
but  it  shall  not  be  of  the  earth,  nor  shall  its  might 
be  that  of  arms.  It  shall  be  world-wide  in  ex¬ 
tent,  but  it  shall  not  depend  upon  the  sword  for 
its  propagation.  To  adopt  the  current  plan  of  a 
warring  Messiah  would  be  to  fall  down  and 
worship  Satan  himself.  He  will  maintain  at  all 
hazards,  even  though  he  does  not  know  how  he 
will  come  out,  the  lofty  ideals  of  his  heart,  and 


THE  TEMPTATION 


127 


pursue  the  even  tenor  of  his  way,  even  though  it 
seems  unreasonable  and  unattractive  to  the 
average  man.  He  faces  the  old  with  a  selective 
scrutiny  that  will  not  pass  one  single  feature  that 
fails  to  stand  his  spiritual  test,  and  fills  in,  with 
confidence  in  the  final  outcome,  the  new  and 
difficult  personal  features  of  his  own  cherished 
ideal.  Rejecting  all  compromise,  it  was  “  Christ 
or  Mohammed,”  and  only  one  of  those  alter- 
natives  attracted  him. 

Thus  Jesus  won  his  right  to  a  richer  faith  and 

a  higher  place  in  the  world  of  heroic  natures. 

Thus  he  conquered  in  the  fight  with  custom  and 

prejudice  and  current  opinion,  even  before  he 

had  met  them  in  the  concrete  and  individual 

forms  through  which  they  were  destined  to  troop 

past  him  on  his  way  and  challenge  his  every 

deed  and  word.  This  great  soul  was  reenforced 

by  his  temptations,  as  is  every  soul  who  conquers 

in  such  an  hour.  He  was  brought  into  closer 

touch  with  God,  as  is  every  man  who  stands  firm 

for  that  which  he  feels  is  right,  even  at  great  cost. 

Failure,  I  suppose,  was  not  thought  possible  by 

Jesus  in  those  hours,  for  he  had  all  the  fresh 

enthusiasm  and  confidence  of  vouth  and  victorv. 

«/ 

And  with  a  high  courage  and  buovant  heart  he 

o  o  J 

went  down  from  his  forty  davs  to  begin  with 
men  the  labors  to  which  he  had  given  his  life. 


128 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


The  temptation  was  not  a  time  of  heart-search¬ 
ing  as  to  the  genuineness  of  his  Messianic  calling, 
but  a  time  for  determining  the  method  of  apply¬ 
ing  the  powers  he  knew  were  his.  Should  he 
work  for  himself,  or  for  God  and  man?  For 
immediate  results,  or  for  final  destiny?  With 
moral  and  spiritual  forces  alone,  or  wdth  use  of 
the  material  resources  of  his  Father?  Should 
his  own  great  gifts  of  mysterious  psychic  power 
serve  his  own  interests  at  any  time,  or  only  those 
of  God  ?  These  are  the  questions  he  asked, 
and  to  these  he  found  an  answer. 

Each  of  the  temptations  had  to  do  with  the 
natural  longing  of  an  earnest  heart  for  results. 
How  could  a  spirit  on  fire  wfith  passion  wait  in¬ 
definitely  for  the  response  to  his  plain  and  urgent 
proclamation  ?  He  came  as  a  sower  of  good 
seed.  He  naturally  wanted  to  see  the  harvest, 
or  at  least  the  springing  grain.  But  the  patience 
of  a  perfect  faith,  and  the  long-suffering  of  a  soul 
satisfied  with  the  expenditure  of  itself,  were  neces¬ 
sary  to  his  future  work.  These  he  acquired  in 
those  days  of  struggle  with  the  temptations  of 
opportunism,  —  opportunism  of  the  body,  in 
use  of  divine  power  for  physical  ends;  oppor¬ 
tunism  of  sense,  in  casting  himself  down  from 
the  pinnacle  of  the  temple;  opportunism  of  politi¬ 
cal  supremacy,  in  using  worldly  means  to  reach 


THE  TEMPTATION 


129 


heavenly  ends.  He  came  to  know  the  things 
the  Son  of  God  could  never  permit  himself  to  do. 
He  progressed  far  along  the  way  of  a  new  con¬ 
ception  of  the  Messianic  calling  as  it  must  be 
worked  out  in  its  detail.  He  had  always  been 
sure  that  it  must  be  a  moral,  not  a  political, 
office;  he  came  to  see  how  the  end  determines 
the  means.  He  caught  a  glimpse  of  the  con¬ 
stant  thwarting  of  the  popular  will  which  he  was 
to  experience.  Yet  he  did  not  lose  hope.  From 
the  wilderness  he  went  back  to  his  place  among 
men  with  rare  confidence  in  himself  and  his 
mission,  to  proclaim  the  Kingdom  of  God  as 
close  at  hand,  a  personal  and  inner  realization 
of  the  divine  law.  He  hoped  and  believed  that 
men  would  see  as  he  did,  and  accept  his  teaching 
soon,  and  join  him  in  the  joyous  labors  of  estab¬ 
lishing  the  Kingdom  on  the  earth. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  ACCORDING  TO  JESUS 

Jesus  used  both  of  the  expressions  “  The  King¬ 
dom  of  God  ”  and  “  The  Kingdom  of  heaven,” 
probably,  with  preference  for  the  latter,  to  avoid 
using  the  name  of  God  according  to  the  common 
practise  of  the  day.  The  Old  Testament  use 
of  the  term,  meaning  a  present  political  kingdom, 
and  the  apocalyptic  use  of  it  as  of  one  to  come, 
mark  the  two  extremes  of  current  faith.  John 
preached  a  future  but  imminent  kingdom  on  the 
earth.  The  ordinary  Jewish  Messianic  faith 
implied  conquest  and  world-power,  but  the  term 
Kingdom  of  heaven  referred  to  an  abstract  reign 
of  God. 

Jesus  did  not  swing  to  either  extreme,  but  used 
the  words  of  both  the  present  and  the  future,  of 
the  concrete  as  well  as  the  abstract,  though  never 
of  a  political  kingdom.  He  saw  a  real  kingdom 
here  on  earth,  but  it  extended  far  on  into  the 
future.  He  taught  what  wTas  true  in  apocalyptic 
visions,  and  used  the  poetic,  symbolic  expressions 
of  that  literature,  when  he  could  gain  attention 

130 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


131 


and  not  be  misunderstood;  and  he  also  taught 
the  gradual  approach  of  an  earthly  Kingdom 
already  begun  in  the  hearts  of  men.  He  was 
neither  exclusively  ethical  in  his  conceptions 
nor  wholly  eschatological;  he  was  both.  His 
prime  teaching  was,  The  Kingdom  is  within  you. 
Whether  the  preposition  is  translated  “  within ” 
or  “among,”  the  same  spiritual  interpretation 
must  be  placed  upon  it.  In  human  hearts  made 
true  and  obedient  to  love,  in  lives  of  service  in 
his  name,  the  signs  of  the  Kingdom’s  presence 
might  be  seen.  He  was  intensely  ethical  in  his 
idea.  Such  a  Kingdom  could  not  come  all  at 
once,  nor  apart  from  human  aid;  it  was  absolutely 
dependent  upon  human  effort  and  cooperation, 
and  like  the  mustard  seed,  the  leaven,  the  grow¬ 
ing  grain  in  the  field,  it  must  have  time  for  its 
completion.  So  he  taught,  now  that  the  King¬ 
dom  is  to  come,  now  that  it  is  here;  and  both 
were  true.  But  there  is  no  sign  that  an  earthly, 
political  monarchy  was  ever  thought  of  by  him 
after  the  struggle  when  he  resisted  all  such  temp¬ 
tation  in  favor  of  his  nobler,  inner  Kingdom  in 
the  hearts  of  men.  He  spoke  in  pictures,  and 
with  an  immediate  personal  purpose,  in  almost 
every  word  of  his  preserved  to  us. 

The  leading  factor  in  his  gospel  was  ethical, 
not  apocalyptic.  He  never  separated  the  ethical 


132 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


from  the  apocalyptic,  nor  the  eschatological  from 
the  ethical.  Religion  and  morals  he  united  in 
spite  of  man’s  endeavor  to  put  them  asunder. 
They  are  mutually  inclusive.  He  knew  of  no 
religion  minus  morality,  nor  of  morals  minus 
religion.  He  would  endorse  Paul’s  phrase,  “  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink;  but  right¬ 
eousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.” 
His  Kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  because  it 
was  not  political.  It  was  emphatically  of  this 
world  in  the  sense  that  it  must  flourish  here. 
And  everywhere  where  human  souls  exist  will 
be  the  place  of  his  Kingdom.  The  leaven  of  his 
spirit  he  believed  would  transform  the  world  in 
time.  The  Kingdom,  to  him,  was  more  the 
family,  than  the  empire,  of  God. 

Fifty-three  times  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
sixteen  times  in  Mark,  thirty -nine  times  in  Luke, 
and  five  times  in  John,  allusion,  more  or  less 
full,  is  made  to  the  Kingdom  of  heaven  or  of 
God.  The  two  terms  are  used  synonymously. 
There  was  a  long  program  adopted  by  the  rabbis 
to  be  followed  out  in  introducing  the  Kingdom. 
The  final  bitterness,  the  coming  of  Elijah,  fol¬ 
lowed  by  the  Messiah;  the  final  conquest  of  their 
enemies,  Jerusalem  reinstated  as  a  world  capital, 
the  Dispersion  organized,  a  glorious  day  in 
Palestine,  the  world  restored;  the  general  resur- 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


133 


rection,  the  last  judgment  and  the  final  and 

eternal  salvation  and  punishment,  —  this  was 

what  they  taught,  according  to  Schiirer.1  This 

ordered  wav  Jesus  did  not  treasure.  He  called 
«/ 

John,  the  forerunner,  “Elijah”  (Matt.  11:  14; 
17:  12),  but  the  plans  of  earthly  conquest  he 
changed  into  spiritual  experiences.  He  did  teach 
that  the  old,  present  age  was  about  to  collapse, 
but  his  assertions  deal  with  unendurable  con¬ 
ditions  on  the  ethical  side.  There  was  a  certain 
tinge  of  other-worldliness  in  some  of  his  utter¬ 
ances  (Mark  13:  24  ff.),  but  he  steadfastly  refused 
to  indulge  in  the  mathematics  of  eschatology.2 
The  transformation  of  the  world  and  the  coming 
of  the  Kingdom  were  one  event,  not  two,  and 
he  was  confessedly  ignorant  of  the  time.  He 
promised  blessedness  and  peace  to  all  who  would 
practise  the  laws  of  the  Kingdom,  and  this  high 
estate  was  to  begin  at  once  for  all  who  would 
enter  in.  Righteousness  and  love  must  ever 
secure  the  blessedness  of  which  he  spoke  and 
which  characterized  the  Kingdom  he  proclaimed. 
He  taught,  not  a  social  philosophy,  but  the  prac¬ 
tical  and  personal  bearing  of  individuals  in  a 
state  where  the  purest  social  philosophy  might 
be  formulated  upon  an  ethico-religious  basis. 
Philosophies  never  originate  movements;  move- 
ill.  126 ff.  2  Matt.  25:  19;  Luke  20:  9;  21:  8,  24. 


134 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


ments  give  rise  to  philosophies.  Jesus  sought  to 
set  men  to  living  right,  and  that  was  the  essential 
thing.  Thus  he  instituted  the  highest  morals  of 
the  world  and  set  the  purest  standards  of  conduct. 
He  did  not  attempt  to  lay  down  rules,  nor  to 
enter  into  any  casuistry,  although  multitudes 
have  tried  to  make  out  a  cast-iron  Christian  sys¬ 
tem,  and  to  fit  the  peculiar  glove  of  circumstances 
in  his  age  upon  the  hand  of  each  succeeding 
generation. 

Entrance  to  the  Kingdom  Jesus  found  a  narrow 
gate,  through  which  all  who  came  in  must  pass 
one  at  a  time,  not  en  masse.  He  was  intensely 
individualistic  in  his  conceptions,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  he  was  founding  a  new  order  of  society. 
He  began  with  the  raw  material,  and  made  sure 
of  that  first.  He  wrorked  from  within  outward, 
and  so  joined  himself  to  nature’s  ways.  Not 
war  and  violence,  but  peace  and  rest;  not  a 
political  kingdom,  but  a  true  life  fit  for  eternity, 
—  this  is  what  he  sought  for  from  the  first. 
First  the  blade,  then  the  ear,  and  only  after  the 
long  summer  came  the  full  corn.  The  leaven 
worked  unseen  and  slowly  from  within,  as  the 
seed  of  the  farmer  grew. 

The  brotherhood  idea  was  not  wanting  in  the 
mind  of  Jesus.  The  children  of  the  common 
Father  were  to  be  united  in  following  him,  and 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


135 


in  the  working  out  of  his  overmastering  passion 
for  mankind.  This  fellowship  was  bound  at 
length  to  transform  the  world  and  to  establish 
a  wholly  new  society,  whose  law  should  be  love 
and  sendee.  The  Ritsehlian  theology  is  war¬ 
ranted  in  its  sociological  thinking,  and  has 
developed  a  needed  phase  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
for  our  day.  His  method  was  that  of  nature,  by 
the  inspiration  of  a  new  life.  “  He  deposited 
in  it  a  new  principle;  but  he  left  in  it  many 
obscurities,  abandoning  to  time  and  to  the  force 
of  events  the  task  of  bringing  out  the  consequences 
and  clearing  up  confusions.”1 

The  eschatological  language  which  Jesus  used 
cannot  have  meant  to  him  what  it  meant  to  cur¬ 
rent  Judaism;  but  like  all  of  his  teaching,  it  was 
intended  for  the  ear  attuned  to  his  spiritual 
message.  Interpreted  wholly  as  referring  to  the 
individual  experience,  and  the  Kingdom  within, 
the  events  and  processes,  the  portents  and  seasons, 
all  may  find  a  counterpart.  To  assert  that  he 
spoke  these  words  in  the  voice  of  his  day,  is  to 
make  impossible  the  entire  drift  of  his  teachings 
about  the  Kingdom.  He  saw  the  sudden  com¬ 
ing  of  the  inner  Kingdom  as  a  constant  possi¬ 
bility  in  human  hearts,  but  his  gaze  was  not 

1  Sabatier,  Outlines  of  the  Philosophy  of  Religion,  pp.  188, 
189. 


136 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


fixed  upon  the  clouds  in  wrapt  expectancy.  If 
he  used  the  “  little  apocalypse  ”  in  Mark  (13 :  7-9a, 
14-20,  24-27,  30)  he  cannot  possibly  have  failed 
to  adapt  it  to  his  dominant  purpose  and  to  apply 
it  to  the  Kingdom  he  had  taught  and  hoped  to 
establish  then  and  there.  A  sudden  transfor¬ 
mation  would  never  bring  the  Kingdom  of  Good 
Will  which  Jesus  announced.  Its  one  essential 
was  the  inner  progress  of  grace,  which  must 
have  time. 

Jesus  did  not  contemplate  an  organization 
apart  from  the  Jewish  faith  in  which  he  was 
born,  but  rather  an  outgrowth  from  it  in  vital 
incarnation  of  the  deepest  spirit  of  that  faith. 
He  did  gather  the  Twelve  with  evident  intent  to 
leave  to  them  the  work  of  inoculating  others 
with  the  virtue  of  his  spirit.  He  warned  them 
of  the  hatred  and  persecution  into  which  they 
would  be  brought 1  and  joined  that  expectation 
to  his  own  sufferings  and  death.  He  spoke 
doom  upon  the  unbelieving  Jews  and  Gentiles 
alike 2  but  did  not  think  of  having  his  words 
magnified  to  a  prophecy  of  earthly  catastrophe. 

The  Fourth  Gospel,  written  later  than  the 
others,  in  the  maturer  conceptions  of  a  tried 
faith,  sets  forth  the  idea  of  a  slower  process  in  the 

1  Matt.  10:  24  ff.;  Luke  12:  49-53;  Mark  10:  37-39. 

2  Luke  10;  13-15;  11:  29-31,  49-51. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


137 


growth  of  the  Kingdom,  and  indeed  substitutes 
for  the  Jewish  idea  of  the  Kingdom  the  Greek 
idea  of  eternal  life,  which  is  so  closely  synony¬ 
mous  with  it.  We  cannot  doubt  that  this  more 
modern  formulation  of  the  spirit  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  represents  for  us  the  content  of  the  mind 
of  Christ. 

There  was  a  great  contrast  between  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus  as  to  the  Kingdom  and  that  of  the 

o  O 

rabbis.  “  This  new  conception  was  a  startling 
one.  Whereas  prophets,  priests,  and  apocalyp- 
tists  had  thought  of  the  ultimate  earthly  state  of 
blessedness  as  a  moral  and  political  reconstruc¬ 
tion  of  the  nation,  —  political  independence  and 
perfection  of  national  obedience  to  the  Law,  — 
Jesus  made  the  essence  of  the  new  life  to  be  the 
purity  of  the  individual  soul.  The  Deliverer, 
who  had  always  been  conceived  of  as  a  temporal 
king,  he  held  to  be  a  teacher,  sent  from  God  to 
show  men  the  spirit  of  the  divine  Law.”1 

He  announced  principles  which  tended  to 
abrogate  the  ceremonial,  to  abolish  outward  dis¬ 
tinctions,  and  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  all 
men  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  God.  He  had 
to  use  modes  of  expression  current  at  that  time 
and  always,  for  his  sacred  theme.  This  makes 
the  outer  parallels  between  his  teaching  and  that 
1  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.  415. 


138 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


of  the  rabbis  here  peculiarly  numerous.  Yet 
nowhere  are  they  farther  apart.  For  instance,  in 
the  Beatitudes,  he  took  what  seem  to  be  common 
terms  of  expression  for  the  blessings  of  their 
outer  Messianic  age,  and  showed  the  inner,  truest 
meanings  for  the  poor  in  spirit,  the  hungry  and 
those  thirsting  after  righteousness. 

When  Hillel  says,  “My  humility  is  my  great¬ 
ness,  and  my  greatness  my  humility,”  he  reveals 
in  saying  it  howT  wide  a  contrast  lies  between  his 
spirit  and  the  true  humility  of  Jesus.  The  title 
“Kingdom  of  heaven”  was  a  Jewish  one;  it  was 
taken  from  its  narrowness  and  made  as  broad 
as  the  heavens  by  the  new  Teacher.  They 
taught  one  to  expect  a  deliverance  from  Rome; 
Jesus,  a  salvation  from  sin.  They  taught  right- 
ousness  of  form  as  a  condition  of  entering  the 
Kingdom;  he  a  spiritual,  inner  righteousness 
which  was  to  be  a  badge  of  membership  —  ethi¬ 
cal,  not  physical  holiness,  was  what  he  sought. 
Nowhere  is  the  contrast  better  shown  than  in  St. 
Paul’s  discussion  of  the  Law  in  Romans  and 
Galatians.  Law  left  him  in  bondage  and  un¬ 
certainty,  even  despair.  From  it,  Christ  Jesus 
rescued  him ;  and  he  saw  the  necessity  —  so  over¬ 
shadowing  is  this  phase  of  his  experience  —  of 
relating  all  Christ’s  life  and  death  to  this  great 
deliverance,  and  of  reasoning  out  a  theory  how 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


139 


it  was  done.  Out  of  overwhelming  fear  he  came 
to  joy  and  peace;  from  beggarly  elements  to  the 
inheritance  incorruptible.  The  Kingdom  was  a 
future  picture  to  the  expectant  Jews.  Jesus 
made  it  present,  immediate.  At  first  he  said  it 
was  at  hand,  and  later  that  it  was  beginning 
already.1  Thus  it  became  the  touchstone  by 
which  all  earthly  relations  were  changed  to  an 
atmosphere  of  peace  and  joy  constantly  about 
believers.  No  earthly  advantage  was  included 
in  it,  —  but  there  was  assurance  of  eternal  life. 
And  that  life  was  newly  conceived,  for  it  was 
spiritualized  and  made  more  definite.  Resur¬ 
rection  was  relieved  of  its  speculative  tinge  and 
became  an  object  of  faith  and  necessary  religious 
hope.  The  Kingdom  was  not  external,  not 
political,  not  limited  to  the  nation  even,  not 
mediate  in  relation  to  God,  nor  was  it  dependent 
on  a  legal  formalism,  nor  put  off  to  a  vague 
future.  It  was  inner,  spiritual;  directly  related 
to  God,  universal,  of  grace,  not  kvv, — under  a 
Messiah  who  stood  among  them. 

The  Sermon  on  the  Mount  certainly  has  a 
normative  relation  to  thought  regarding  the 
Kingdom,  and  deserves  its  titles  of  code,  Magna 
Charta,  etc.  “  The  temporary  design  of  our 
Lord  in  the  beatitudes,”  says  Tholuck,  “was  to 
1  Matt.  12:  28;  Luke  11:  20. 


140 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


crush  the  hope  of  external  felicity,  which  was  all 
that  the  people  expected  from  the  Messiah/’1 
The  complete  sermon  he  calls  a  delineation  of 
the  moral  law  of  Christianity  in  its  general  out¬ 
lines.  So  sure  was  the  Council  of  Trent 2  that 
Christ  gave  a  new  law  that  it  anathematized 
any  one  who  taught  otherwise.  It  was  new  as 
all  his  mission  was  new,  —  a  spiritual  develop¬ 
ment  of  that  which  men  were  fast  petrifying  into 
hard  formalism.  And  it  was  a  present  King¬ 
dom,3  which  St.  John  had  a  perfect  right  to  in¬ 
terpret  in  terms  of  present  spiritual  life. 

Admission  to  this  Kingdom  was  not  by  legal¬ 
ism,  nor  by  potitical  fitness,  not  by  the  accumu¬ 
lated  righteousness  of  others,  nor  by  catastrophe. 
It  was  by  repentance,  showing  openness  of  spirit 
to  God,  who  could  thus  alone  fill  the  soul,  —  by 
poverty  of  spirit.  Theirs  is  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
A  reward  is  added,  as  a  matter  of  abundant 
grace,  and  victory  over  the  great  enemy  Satan  is 
a  matter  of  course.  Righteousness,  or  a  perfect 
fulfilling  of  the  will  of  God,  is  an  essential  part 
of  the  Kingdom.  Fulfilment  of  the  Law  is  to 
be  the  kernel,  but  in  spirit,  not  in  form.  The 

1  Sermon  on  Mount,  1,  97. 

2  Sixth  Session,  21st  Canon. 

3 Matt.  11:  12;  12:  28;  16:  19;  Luke  16:  16;  17:  20;  21: 
Mark  12:  34. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 


141 


result  of  the  strife  of  love  to  fulfil  all  is  the 
Kingdom. 

The  work  of  the  Messiah,  as  well  as  the  Mes¬ 
siah’s  self,  must  be  different  in  such  a  Kingdom 
from  that  of  the  expected  Messiah  of  the  day. 
x4nd  because  of  this  difference,  he  must  be  a 
prophet,  a  teacher  of  spiritual  truth.  Jesus  often 
styles  himself  so.1  Thus  he  began  his  ministry. 

Nowhere,  perhaps,  is  there  greater  contrast 
between  the  teaching  of  the  rabbis  and  that  of 
Jesus  than  in  the  doctrines  regarding  sin  and 
sinners  and  forgiveness.  The  former  said  little 
about  sin,  save  the  formal  neglect  of  the  Law. 
To  Jesus,  sin  is  the  great  rival  power  against 
Righteousness,  which  is  the  soul  of  the  Kingdom. 
To  it,  then,  Jesus  must  have  peculiar  relation. 
He  is  the  embodiment  of  deliverance  from  it,  and 
of  forgiveness.  “All  other  systems  know  of  no 
welcome  till  the  sinner  has  ceased  to  sin.  He 
must  first  be  a  penitent,  then  he  will  find  wel¬ 
come.  Christ  welcomes  him  to  God,  and  so 
makes  him  penitent.’'3 

And  as  this  power  is  universal,  so  the  work  of 
Christ  in  forgiveness  must  be;  the  spiritual  nature 
of  the  Kingdom  is  the  ground  for  the  relation  to 
sin  and  for  the  universal  nde  of  the  Messiah. 

1  Mark  6:  4;  Matt.  10:  40,  41;  15:  24;  21:  3,  4. 

2  Edersheim. 


142 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


There  comes  in  also  the  interpretation  of  Isaiah 
53,  of  the  Messiah,  which,  if  not  utterly  new  with 
Jesus,  was  at  least  adopted  and  vitalized  by  his 
gentle  spirit. 

So  Jesus  taught  men  to  pray  to  God  as  to  their 
Father.  He  introduced  them  to  a  Kingdom 
already  in  process  of  becoming,  whose  reign  is 
not  by  Law  but  by  Love.  He  showed  them  how 
human  nature  was  the  ground  for  it,  not  Judaism, 
and  how  the  true  Messiah  must  come  to  teach, 
to  comfort  and  to  suffer  for  sin,  and  rise  from  the 
death  inflicted  by  the  powers  of  evil  to  a  life  of 
constant  spiritual  service  of  his  Father’s  children. 
Upon  these  three  foundation  stones  he  was  con¬ 
tent  to  rest  the  superstructure  of  his  mission:  the 
revelation  of  God  as  the  personal  Father  of  men; 
the  saving  grace  of  the  Father’s  love;  and  the 
saving  righteousness  of  a  responsive,  filial  affec¬ 
tion. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES  AS  JESUS  USED  THEM 

For  several  years  the  battle  has  been  waged 
around  the  titles  which  are  assigned  to  Jesus  in 
the  Gospels.  So  sharp  has  it  become  that  the 
latest  writer  in  America  in  this  field  1  has  frankly 
confessed  that  the  whole  question  of  the  person 
of  Jesus  rests  upon  the  interpretation  given  to 
the  title  “Son  of  man,”  which  he  is  assumed  in 
the  Gospels  to  have  used  of  himself. 

The  philological  argument  as  stated  by  Well- 
hausen  and  his  school  is  based  upon  the  proba¬ 
bility  that  Jesus,  if  he  used  any  such  phrase  as 
6  t'to?  to v  avOpwiTov  stands  for  in  the  Greek,  must 
have  employed  the  common  Aramaic  words 
‘“Bar  nasha.”  In  Aramaic  the  phrase  must 
mean  man,  generically,  or  be  an  indefinite,  but 
never  can  it  be  a  title.  The  translators  of  an 
early  Aramaic  tradition  into  Greek  were  misled 
into  the  baldest  literalism,  and  rendered  this 
idiomatic  expression  word  for  word,  6  uto?  tov  av- 
Oponrov,  instead  of  according  to  its  real  meaning. 


1  Schmidt,  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth,  p.  131. 

143 


144 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


This  reinterpretation  the  scholar  then  applies 
to  every  ease  in  which  his  criticism  finds  the 
Greek  phrase  employed  with  probability  of  his¬ 
toricity,  and  demonstrates  that  the  meaning 
assumed  for  the  Aramaic  expression  fits  all  de¬ 
mands  of  the  text.  This  done,  the  conclusion  is 
drawn  that  Jesus  never  made  a  claim  that  he 
was  the  Messiah,  and  that  he  never  dreamed  of 
such  a  thing,  but  even  definitely  and  persistently 
denied  such  a  mission  and  refused  such  a  title. 

Let  us  examine  first  the  philological  argument, 
and  then  the  application  of  it  to  the  gospel. 

It  is  probable  that  Jesus  did  speak  Aramaic, 
although  he  may  easily  have  known  and  prob¬ 
ably  did  know  Hebrew,  and  may  have  had  some 
acquaintance  with  Greek.  The  Greek  names 
among  his  earliest  followers  suggest  that  he 

o  oo 

moved  in  a  society  not  altogether  removed  from 
Greek  influences.1  Assuming  that  he  spoke  his 
gospel  to  Aramaic-speaking  people,  however,  the 
tradition  which  brought  it  down  to  us  would  nat¬ 
urally  have  an  original  Aramaic  form,  although 
with  constant  and  increasing  tendencv  to  as- 
sume  a  Greek  expression  of  it  also.  As  the 
Church  spread  far  and  wide  from  Jerusalem  in 

1  The  conjecture  of  Sunday  and  Driver  that  Jesus  may 
have  used  the  phrase  first  in  Greek  -while  addressing  Gali¬ 
leans  in  that  tongue  cannot  be  proved  to  be  even  probable. 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


145 


the  days  of  Paul,  this  Greek  tradition  became  a 

necessity,  and  assumed  a  fixed  form,  alongside 

the  Aramaic  tradition,  which  must  have  been 

dear  to  the  Jewish  Christians  in  every  church, 

even  in  Rome.  There  must  have  been  constant 

and  careful  comparison  between  the  two,  and 

even  sharp  criticism  of  the  Greek  tradition  by 

those  who  held  fast  to  the  seemingly  older  and 

more  accurate  Aramaic  wording.  In  every 

critical  expression,  and  highly  significant  word, 

especially  touching  the  person  of  Jesus  and  his 

Messianic  mission,  the  Jewish  members  of  those 

earlv  churches  would  have  been  keen  to  detect 
«/ 

any  radical  departure  from  their  personal  and 
cherished  Aramaic  accounts.  The  facts  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
even  if  we  confine  ourselves  to  the  five  epistles 
which  are  generally  conceded  to  belong  to  him, 
all  indicate  that  there  was  a  sharp  rivalry  between 
the  two  elements  in  the  new  Church  which  would 
guarantee  that  the  gospel  as  rendered  into  Greek 
should  be  a  strict  and  reliable  rendering  of  the 
meaning  as  well  as  the  words  of  Jesus  as  he  must 
have  expressed  himself  in  the  Aramaic. 

If  this  reasoning  is  fair,  then  it  is  unfair  to 
assume  that  we  can  translate  the  Greek  back 
into  Aramaic,  declare  that  Jesus  used  the  very 
expression  we  employ,  and  then  assert  that  this 


146 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Aramaic  phrase  does  not  mean  at  all  what  the 
Greek  phrase  does  from  which  we  translated  it. 
Shall  we  conclude  that  the  original  Greek  tra¬ 
dition,  worked  out  in  the  midst  of  hot  and  bitter 
conflict,  by  slow  degrees,  not  in  a  cool  scholarly 
atmosphere  with  a  lexicon  and  grammar  over 
night,  was  mistaken  in  its  rendering  of  a  simple 
and  commonplace  expression  into  a  highly  im¬ 
portant  and  critical  title  which  no  Jew  on  the 
other  side  could  detect  and  no  leader  like  Peter 
or  Paul  could  correct?  Or  is  it  a  more  natural 
inference  that  the  modern  scholar,  however  well 
equipped  with  lexicons  and  texts  —  and  his 
equipment  in  reality  is  both  meager  and  difficult 
to  interpret  —  has  failed  to  reconstruct  the  text 
exactly  as  it  stood  in  the  Aramaic  tradition  ?  Is  it 
a  matter  after  all  of  the  letter,  or  of  the  idea  ?  If 
the  latter  is  the  important  thing,  the  philological 
argument  hardly  suffices  to  overthrow  it  alone. 
The  dogmatism  of  criticism  is  no  more  worthy 
to  rank  as  argument  than  the  dogmatism  of 
faith.  To  declare  that  Jesus  cannot  have  used 
the  phrase  “Bar  nasha”  as  a  title  is  to  beg 
the  question.  To  assert  that  Jesus  must  have 
used  this  particular  phrase  is  also  an  assumption 
that  we  can  hardly  make,  in  the  paucity  of  our 
knowledge  of  the  dialect  he  spoke.  And  to  pro¬ 
nounce  it  settled  that  Jesus  never  called  himself 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


147 


Son  of  man,  upon  such  evidence,  is  to  assume 
that  possibilities  are  probabilities  and  proba¬ 
bilities  certainties.  There  is  abundant  evidence 
in  the  undisputed  epistles  of  St.  Paul  that  he  and 
those  to  whom  he  wrote  had  very  definite  con¬ 
victions  about  the  Messianic  office  of  Jesus,  and 
that  they  never  doubted  that  he  recognized  him¬ 
self  as  the  Messiah,  difficult  as  that  was  for  the 
Greek  and  the  Roman  to  accept. 

When  it  comes  to  applying  the  assumed 
Aramaic  phrase  “  Bar  nasha  ”  to  all  the  passages 
which  the  latest  criticism  leaves  unassailed,  the 
demonstration  of  the  precariousness  of  the  con¬ 
clusions  reached  by  Wellhausen  and  Schmidt  is 
complete.  These  passages  are,  according  to 
Schmidt,1  Matt.  8:  20;  9:  6;  11:19;  12:8;  12:  32a; 
20:  18,  with  17 :  22  left  in  doubt.  Three  passages 
occur  also  in  Luke  (the  first,  third,  and  fifth),  the 
others  in  the  Synoptic  tradition.  The  first  pas¬ 
sage  reads,  “The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the  birds 
of  the  air  have  nests;  but  the  Son  of  man  hath 
not  where  to  lay  his  head.”  This  was  said  in 
reply  to  the  ardent  profession  of  a  certain  scribe 
who  in  his  enthusiasm  over  the  healing  of  many 
sick  people,  declared,  “  Master,  I  will  follow  thee 
whithersoever  thou  goest.”  To  substitute  the  pro¬ 
posed  translation  of  “  Bar  nasha  ”  here,  making 

1  pp.  121-125. 


148 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Jesus  say  in  reply,  “A  man  hath  not  where  to  lay 
his  head,”  with  no  reference  to  himself  or  the 
risk  incurred  in  following  him,  is  to  rob  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  sense  and  pertinence.  The  second  refer¬ 
ence  is  to  the  story  of  the  man  sick  of  the  palsy, 
where  Jesus  replies  to  the  criticism  of  the  scribes, 
“That  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath 
power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins,  .  .  .  Arise, 
take  up  thy  bed.”  Apply  the  generic  meaning 
to  Son  of  man,  and  the  sense  is  materially  altered, 
not  only  for  the  verse  but  for  the  entire  passage. 
He  would  not  prove  by  his  healing  the  man  that 
any  man  who  came  along  could  forgive  sins. 
He  meant  evidently  to  imply  that  since  he  could 
heal  an  apparently  incurable  disease,  he  could 
do  what  seemed  to  them  a  part  of  the  same  act, 
since  they  believed  disease  was  a  sign  of  guilt, 
namely,  forgive  his  sins.  In  dealing  with  this 
passage  Schmidt  (p.  197)  passes  quickly  from 
the  real  issue,  the  forgiving  of  sins,  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  forgiveness,  the  assurance  that  sins  are 
forgiven,  namely  by  God.  Of  course  man  may 
make  that  proclamation,  but  to  forgive  is  a  divine 
prerogative,  and  the  whole  meaning  hinges  upon 
that  understanding.  Did  Jesus  merely  tell  the 
man  that  God  forgave  him,  and  in  doing  so  ex¬ 
plain  to  the  lookers-on  that  any  man  could  do 
that?  Or  did  he  actually  presume  to  forgive 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


149 


the  man  himself,  with  an  assumption  of  divine 
prerogative?  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
latter  is  the  true  meaning,  and  it  is  sustained  by 
the  phrase  “on  earth,”  as  if  he,  in  earthly  form, 
must  do  what  God  in  heaven  was  pleased  to  do. 
The  proposed  rendering  of  “  Bar  nasha  ”  evidently 
does  not  meet  the  needs  of  the  passage. 

The  third  reference  is  to  Matt.  11:  19.  There 
Jesus  makes  his  characteristic  contrast  between 
the  coming  of  John  Baptist  and  the  bearing  of 
the  Son  of  man  who  came  eating  and  drinking. 
To  assume  that  he  said  that  man  in  general  came 
eating  and  drinking,  and  that  they  said,  “  Behold 
a  man  gluttonous,  and  a  winebibber,”  would  be 
hard  to  accept;  but  when  one  tries  to  make  the 
rest  of  the  passage,  “  a  friend  of  publicans  and 
sinners,”  fit  in  with  the  generic  meaning  of  Son 
of  man,  it  is  simply  impossible  to  accept  that 
interpretation.  It  would  be  to  make  the  words 
both  irrelevant  and  untrue.  The  average  man 
was  precisely  not  a  friend  of  publicans  and 
sinners. 

The  favorite  application  of  the  proposed  new 
meaning  of  Son  of  man  by  the  Wellhausen  school 
is  to  Matt.  12:  8,  in  the  matter  of  Sabbath  ob¬ 
servance.  It  seems  plausible  in  itself  that  Jesus 
may  have  meant  that  as  the  Sabbath  is  made  for 
man,  so  man  is  lord  of  the  Sabbath.  But  there 


150 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


are  objections  even  here.  That  merely  repeats 
what  he  has  said;  he  does  not  follow  up  his  refer¬ 
ences  to  David  and  the  priests,  whose  acts  were 
hallowed  by  their  office;  “one  greater  than  the 
temple  ”  cannot  refer  to  a  man  as  such.  And 
Jesus  never  so  far  abrogated  the  sacred  institu¬ 
tions  as  to  set  the  average  man  as  lord  above  any 
one  of  them.  He  could  not  have  used  such  a 
term  in  this  connection. 

The  fifth  passage  which  has  stood  the  tests  of 
critical  examination  is  Matt.  12:  32a.  “And 
whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Son  of 
man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him.”  Here  the  mean¬ 
ing  might  be  established  with  the  proposed 
interpretation,  so  that  the  contrast  would  be  be¬ 
tween  speech  against  a  man  and  speech  against 
God;  but  the  connection  indicates  clearly  that 
there  is  no  such  contrast  in  the  mind  of  Jesus, 
if  he  is  correctly  reported.  The  words  follow, 
and  reply  to,  the  criticism  of  his  casting  out  devils. 
The  argument  is  this:  “If  you  will,  criticize  me, 
and  call  me  what  you  choose;  but  do  not  insult 
the  Spirit  of  God.” 

Schmidt  does  not  deny  the  originality  of  Matt. 
17 :  22,  but  remarks  that  20 :  18  seems  more 
probable,  as  if  the  thought  which  appears  in  each 
could  not  be  repeated.  Taking  up  the  latter 
reference,  where  Jesus  announces  that  “  the  Son 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


151 


of  man  shall  be  betrayed’’  when  they  shall  come 
into  Jerusalem,  it  is  manifest  that  a  substitu¬ 
tion  of  the  generic  meaning  for  the  phrase  does 
not  satisfy  either  the  declaration  itself  or  the 
passage. 

The  first  and  third  passages  contain  a  pro¬ 
verbial  expression,  probably  often  repeated,  as 
such  expressions  always  are,  and  as  teachers 
among  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  reiterate 
important  truths.  They  lose  at  once  their  point, 
and  hence  their  use,  in  the  proposed  interpreta¬ 
tion.  The  second  and  fourth  citations  are  from 
arguments  where  the  entire  application  hinges 
upon  the  reference  to  Jesus  himself.  The  fifth 
is  a  rebuke  and  the  sixth  a  warning,  neither  of 
which  can  stand  if  44  Son  of  man  ”  must  mean 
only  “a  man.”  It  needs  no  further  application 
of  the  “  Bar  nasha  ”  theory  to  prove  that  it  is  not 
satisfactory  for  one  who  retains  the  words  in  their 
Greek  connection  or  who  desires  to  make  such 
sense  of  the  passages  where  they  occur  as  war¬ 
rants  the  use  of  them.  Doubtless  the  effort  to 
find  the  Aramaic  words  which  Jesus  spoke  is  a 
fruitful  and  commendable  venture  of  criticism; 
but  it  must  be  conducted  with  full  appreciation 
of  the  value  of  the  Greek  as  a  vehicle  of  thought, 
and  of  the  ability  of  those  who  brought  down  the 
Greek  tradition  to  express  in  it,  at  least  as  carefully 


152 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


as  we  can  in  Aramaic,  the  exact  shade  of  meaning 
which  Jesus  had  in  mind.  The  question  raised 
in  the  “  Bar  nasha  ”  discussion  is  not  merely  one 
of  analytical  criticism,  but  also  one  of  common 
sense  and  constructive  thinking.  As  long  as  the 
common  interpretation  according  to  the  Greek 
tradition  is  so  fully  borne  out  by  the  sense  of 
the  passages,  both  those  which  Schmidt  accepts 
as  “  originals  ”  and  much  more  those  which  he 
rejects,  it  is  easier  to  believe  that  Jesus  did  use 
some  expression  corresponding  to  “The  Son  of 
man”  as  a  title  for  himself. 

What  did  Jesus  mean  by  the  title  ?  Evidently, 
as  it  appears  in  two  connections,  he  had  two  dis- 
stinct  but  related  purposes  in  employing  it.  If, 
as  it  is  natural  to  infer,  he  took  the  words  from 
Dan.  7 :  13,  he  must  have  put  into  them  something 
of  the  meaning  of  that  passage.  To  that  “Son 
of  man  ”  coming  on  the  clouds,  there  was  given 
“dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom.”  This 
idea  Jesus  did  not  express  in  the  earlier  use  of 
the  title,  however  much  it  had  to  do  with  his 
choice  of  it.  He  could  not  afford  to  risk  the 
misunderstandings  that  would  have  been  involved. 
For  this  fuller  meaning  he  had  to  prepare  the 
minds  of  his  hearers  to  appreciate  his  idea  of  a 
dominion  and  his  ideal  of  a  kingdom.  Hence 
we  find  him  using  the  title  “Son  of  man”  with 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


153 


an  almost  opposite  meaning.  Into  his  every 
thought  of  glory  and  throughout  all  his  speech 
about  the  Kingdom,  he  shot  the  idea  of  spiritual 
superiority  based  upon  self-forgetfulness  and  a 
devoted  service.  Nowhere  is  there  a  more  charac¬ 
teristic  word  of  his  preserved  than  this : 1  “  The 
Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for 
many.”  A  careful  classification  of  all  passages 
where  the  title  appears,  not  including  parallels, 
shows  that  in  ten  the  suggestion  of  humiliation 
and  suffering  is  present;  in  eleven  either  a  mere 
pronominal  use  appears  in  place  of  the  first  per¬ 
sonal  pronoun,  or  else  an  idea  of  administering 
to  human  need;  and  in  eighteen  the  apocalyptic 
element  predominates.  Sixteen  of  the  eighteen 
apocalyptic  passages  belong  after  the  confession 
of  Peter  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  and  of  the  two  be¬ 
fore  that  event  Matt.  10:  23  belongs  to  the 
charge  given  to  the  Twelve  before  they  were 
sent  out  to  preach,  and  Matt.  13 :  41  is  an  explana¬ 
tion  of  a  parable  which  may  well  be  considered 
to  have  been  supplied  by  the  writer.  The  ten 
passages,  in  which  the  idea  of  humiliation  and 
suffering  predominates,  all  occur  after  the  crisis 
referred  to  above;  and  of  the  eleven  other,  less 
formal,  more  pronominal  uses  of  the  title,  six 
1  Matt.  20:  28;  Mark  10:  45. 


154 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


appear  in  the  text  before  and  five  after  that 
event.  The  parallel  passages  in  other  Gospels 
sometimes  use  the  bare  “I”  or  “me.”  The 
inference  may  be  drawn  that  the  earlier  use  of 
the  title  by  Jesus  wTas  of  this  more  general,  mys¬ 
tical  order,  to  conceal  his  thought  rather  than  to 
reveal  anything  about  himself.  His  use  changed 
with  his  purpose,  and  he  must  have  felt  all  re¬ 
straint  removed  when  at  last  the  disciples  recog¬ 
nized  his  Messianic  mission  and  his  Messianic 
character,  so  that  he  could  employ  the  title  with 
immediate  reference  to  the  passage  in  Daniel, 
which  could  not  have  been  unfamiliar  to  his 
synagogue-bred  followers.  But  the  popular  con¬ 
ception  as  to  the  Messiah,  which  even  his  most 
intimate  followers  shared,  he  had  to  correct;  and 
therefore  we  find  the  contrasted  use  of  the  exalted 
phrase,  to  guard  against  misunderstandings  and 
to  secure  that  sense  of  the  humility  of  true  great¬ 
ness  which  Jesus  taught,  and  the  losing  of  self  in 
service  which  he  never  failed  to  emphasize  as  the 
characteristic  activity  of  his  Kingdom.  Fiebig  1 
is  right  in  his  reasoning  that  Jesus  used  the  title 
at  first  to  mystify. 

However,  when  his  disciples  made  their  great 
discovery  and  confessed  their  faith  in  him  as  the 
Messiah,  he  rapidly  developed  the  two  ideas 
1  Der  Menschensohn,  Jesu  Selbstbezeichniss. 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


155 


which  the  phrase  held  for  him  into  a  full-orbed 
truth.  The  same  process  is  reflected  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  also,  which  deals  almost  entirely 
with  the  last  days  of  Jesus,  and  unites  both 
meanings  of  the  title  Son  of  man  upon  the  lips  of 
Jesus.  It  suggests  likewise  (12:  34)  the  uncer¬ 
tainty  and  confusion  in  the  popular  mind  regard¬ 
ing  the  title.  “  Who  is  this  Son  of  man  ?  ”  they 
ask.  They  were  not  accustomed  to  employ  the 
phrase  as  a  Messianic  title.  It  was  not  common. 
It  is  found  only  in  a  portion  of  Enoch  and  in 
4th  Esdras,  and  it  is  possible  that  these  should 
not  be  assigned  to  a  date  before  Christ.  Jesus 
orio’inated  the  new  and  striking  use  of  the  Daniel 

o  o 

phrase,  probably,  at  least  as  far  as  he  himself  is 
concerned,  and  appropriated  to  himself  as  the 
conscious  leader  of  the  nation  the  term  describ¬ 
ing  the  nation  in  that  familiar  passage.  With 
his  active  mind  seeking  everywhere  for  food  to 
satisfy  his  eager  spirit  in  his  quest  for  opportunity 
to  serve  and  lead,  he  could  not  have  heard  those 
words  in  Daniel  7 :  13,  14  without  applying  them 
to  himself.  He  was  so  bound  up  with  the  nation, 
his  whole  life-purpose  was  so  exactly  that  of  the 
theocracy,  that  the  words  seemed  to  him  written 
expressly  to  formulate  his  mission.  However  the 
rabbis  read  them,  he  was  not  accustomed  to 
submit  his  intellect  to  their  wills  nor  to  shape 


156 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


his  thought  by  theirs.  As  the  words  in  Isaiah 

(61:  1-3)  were  taken  by  him  in  the  synagogue  at 

Nazareth  in  perfect  good  faith  as  pointing  to  him 

and  his  life-work,  so  he  saw  in  the  Son  of  man 

passage  what  doubtless  no  others  saw,  a  peculiar 

personal  connection  with  himself  and  with  his 

mission.  He  may  not  have  realized  at  first  how 

«/ 

difficult  it  would  be  for  others  to  see  that  con¬ 
nection,  but  he  made  the  better  use  of  the  title 
because  of  that  fact,  while  he  trained  his  disciples 
in  perception  of  the  fuller  truth  respecting  himself. 

The  other  title  which  the  Gospels  employ  of 
Jesus  appears  in  the  form  “Son  of  God,”  and  also 
in  that  of  “The  Son.”  In  the  Synoptics  the 
former  is  found  twenty-seven  times  and  the  latter 
nine  times.  The  F ourth  Gospel  has  “  The  Son 
of  God  ”  ten  times,  “  The  Son  ”  fourteen  times, 
and  “  The  only -begotten  Son  ”  twice,  “  Thy 
Son  ”  once.  Jesus  is  seldom  represented  as  using 
the  longer  title,  but  commonly  employs  the 
words  “The  Son.”  A  more  metaphysical  mean¬ 
ing  is  evidently  attached  to  the  words  in  the 
latest  Gospel,  not  only  in  the  phrase  “only -be¬ 
gotten  ”  but  everywhere. 

The  title  was  a  recognized  title  of  the  Messiah, 
as  derived  from  Old  Testament  references  to  the 
theocratic  king,1  and  to  the  people  themselves 
i  2  Sam.  7:  14;  Ps.  2:  7;  89:  26,  27. 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


157 


collectively.1  It  was  used  with  such  a  meaning 
in  Matt.  16:  16;  Mark  14:61;  John  11:27;  20:31. 
It  was  Messianic,  however,  not  because  of  its 
primary  meaning,  but  secondarily,  because  the 
theocratic  king  or  the  nation  was  so  called. 
There  was  also  a  certain  apocalyptic  flavor 
about  it.  The  king  was  the  representative  of 
God,  and  partook  of  his  sanctity.2  There  was 
no  warmth  in  it  upon  the  popular  tongue,  for  the 
current  idea  of  God  was  of  one  too  remote  to  make 
a  close  personal  relation  between  even  the  Messiah 
and  God  one  of  affection  and  intimacy.  It  meant, 
rather,  belonging  to  God,  and  that  an  ethical 
relationship,  worked  out  by  the  spiritually- 
minded,  was  beginning  to  appear.3 

TV  as  this  title  used  by  Jesus,  or  did  he  permit 
it  to  be  used  of  him  ?  And  if  so  what  did  he 
mean  by  it  P  The  current  critical  analysis  by 
way  of  the  Aramaic  renders  the  phrase  in  that 
dialect  ‘‘  Bar  Elaha”  and  denies  the  use  of  it  by 

1  Ex.  4:  22;  Deut.  1:  31;  8:  5;  32:  6;  Jer.  23:  5;  Hos. 

11:  1. 

2  The  idea  was  wide-spread  among  Gentiles,  as  realized  in 
both  mythical  and  historic  characters.  Egyptian  kings  were 
long  considered  incarnations,  and  sacrifice  and  prayers  were 
offered  to  them.  Babylonian  kings  were  called  divine.  The 
East  influenced  Rome  to  worship  the  emperor,  even  while 
he  lived. 

s  Ps.  Sol.  7:  30;  18:  4;  4  Esdras  6:  58. 


158 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Jesus  anywhere.  But  the  Gospels  are  so  agreed 
in  the  tradition  that  it  is  difficult  to  prove  that 
position.  It  is  true  that  Philo  laid  foundations 
for  the  fullest  development  of  the  Christian  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Son  of  God  when  he  called  the  Logos 
“  The  perfect  Son  ”  and  “  The  first-born  Son  of 
God,”  but  it  is  not  at  all  impossible  that  the  idea 
was  associated  with  Jesus  in  his  ministry,  and 
especially  at  his  death. 

The  term  appears  in  the  Synoptics  in  five  con¬ 
nections  as  follows: 

(1)  In  the  Gospel  of  the  infancy,  the  angel 
of  the  annunciation  predicts  that  Jesus  will  be 
the  Son  of  God  by  miraculous  physical  birth; 
an  idea  not  advanced  anywhere  else,  either  bv 
Jesus  or  of  him.  In  the  genealogy  also  as  it 
appears  in  Luke,  he  is  declared  Son  of  God 
through  Adam.  This  reasoning  appears  nowhere 
else.  Neither  of  these  presentations  seems  to 
have  had  the  least  influence  with  Jesus,  if  indeed 
he  knew  of  them. 

(2)  Voices  from  heaven  came  to  his  ear  twice 
at  great  crises  of  his  experience,  declaring  him  to 
be  the  well-beloved  Son  of  God,  and  twice  dur¬ 
ing  his  temptation  the  suggestion  came  to  him, 
in  the  form  of  an  insinuation  that  he  might  not 
be  God’s  Son.  These  subjective  experiences 
must  have  been  narrated  to  the  disciples  by 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


159 


Jesus  himself.  There  is  no  other  way  for  account¬ 
ing  for  them.  The  consciousness  that  he  bore  a 
close  personal  relationship  to  God  had  long  been 
his,  and  had  set  him  apart  and  become  the  chief 
joy  and  inspiration  of  his  life.  What  could  be 
more  natural  than  that  Jesus  should  have  heard 
these  voices  of  good  and  of  evil,  reenforcing  or 
attacking  the  heart  of  his  belief,  where  his  great¬ 
est  strength  lay  and  his  hopes  for  the  future? 
The  dress  of  the  story,  objectifying  these  spiritual 
experiences,  has  been  justified,  if  indeed  it  needs 
justification,  by  the  common  approval  given  to  it 
through  the  ages.  What  our  day  and  race  would 
tell  in  less  vivid  form,  and  without  these  striking 
pictures,  is  set  before  the  reader  in  a  way  to  make 
it  real  for  all  ages,  and  simple  for  all  who  read 
for  spirit  and  not  for  letter. 

(3)  Demoniacs  are  represented  as  crying  out 
in  the  presence  of  Jesus  and  proclaiming  him 
the  Son  of  God.  The  current  theories  regarding 
them  assigned  to  these  afflicted  persons  a  clair¬ 
voyant  sort  of  discernment.  We  tend  to  look 
«/ 

upon  them  as  afflicted  with  mental  maladies 
which  sometimes  offer  just  such  clairvoyant 
phenomena,  and  we  can  therefore  the  easier 
appreciate  the  powers  assigned  to  them  by  the 
Jews.  But  while  their  testimony  becomes  of  no 
worth  to  us  as  proof  of  the  fact  declared,  it  is  of 


160 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


value  as  a  reflection  of  popular  opinion  in  the 
midst  of  which  they  lived,  and  which  had  im¬ 
pressed  upon  them  either  a  longing  for  or  a  dread 
of  cure. 

(4)  The  disciples  are  represented  as  using  the 
title  Son  of  God  only  twice,  when  they  were 
especially  startled  by  Jesus  as  he  appeared  to 
them  in  the  storm  upon  the  sea  at  night,  and 
when  Peter  made  his  great  confession  at  Caesarea 
Philippi.  They  seem  to  have  had  so  intimate 
a  friendship  with  Jesus  that  he  never  permitted 
them  to  feel  that  he  was  in  any  sense  removed 
from  them  afar  off,  or  exalted  above  them.  His 
entire  gospel  was  one  of  salvation  by  friendship, 
and  he  made  it  operative  in  them  by  his  warm 
human  love  and  his  close  companionship.  The 
conception  of  uniqueness  of  his  Sonsliip  to  God 
is  apparent.  It  was  no  ethical  relationship  that 
enabled  him  to  come  to  them  upon  the  sea,  nor 
was  it  any  mere  general  term  of  human  or  racial 
meanings  which  Peter  employed,  but  rather  a 
title  reserved  for  the  Messiah. 

(5)  At  the  trial  and  death  of  Jesus  most  of  the 
passages  containing  this  title  appear.  When 
the  high  priest  challenged  Jesus  whether  he  was 
the  Son  of  God,  Mark  doubtless  gives  in  his  reply, 
“  I  am,  ”  the  key  to  the  rather  enigmatical  answers 
given  in  the  other  Synoptics.  Jesus  claimed  the 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


161 


honorable  title.  The  passers  by  his  cross  and  the 
chief  priests  agree  in  charging  him  with  this  to 
them  presumptuous  sin.  The  centurion’s  decla¬ 
ration,  spoken  from  the  standpoint  of  a  Roman 
soldier,  only  classes  Jesus  in  his  opinion  with  all 
heroes. 

These  are  all  the  passages  where  the  entire 
phrase  appears.  The  shortened  form  of  it, 
“The  Son,”  is  found  nine  times,  in  five  passages, 
or  if  parallels  are  not  counted,  in  three.  Each 
one  is  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus.  They  are  as  fol¬ 
lows:  “  All  things  have  been  delivered  unto 
me  of  my  Father:  and  no  one  knoweth  the  Son, 
save  the  Father;  neither  doth  any  know  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son 
willeth  to  reveal  him.”1  “But  of  that  day  and 
hour  knoweth  no  one,  not  even  the  angels  of 
heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the  Father  only.”2 
The  third  is  the  baptismal  formula  as  given  in 
Matthew  from  the  lips  of  the  risen  Jesus,  which 
appears  to  be  of  too  late  an  origin  to  be  counted 
among  the  historic  passages  upon  which  we  can 
rely. 

Concerning  the  other  two,  it  may  be  said  that 
they  express  a  sense  of  unique  and  intimate 
relationship  with  God,  not  of  a  metaphysical 

1  Matt.  11 :  27;  Luke  10:  22. 

2  Matt.  24:  36;  Mark  13:  32. 


162 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


sort,  but  of  a  sort  that  lifted  him  above  the  com¬ 
mon  human  appreciation  of  God,  while  it  did  not 
give  him  omniscience  or  even  the  fullest  share 
in  the  knowledge  of  his  own  future  and  of  the 
things  that  concerned  his  Kingdom.  Such  an 
intimacy  is  the  matured  conception  that  resulted 
from  the  experience  which  the  growing  boy  had 
in  the  temple  when  his  parents  sought  him  sor¬ 
rowing;  and  in  amazement  at  their  failure  to 
realize  where  he  would  be,  he  said,  “  Knew  ye  not 
that  I  must  be  in  the  things  of  my  Father?” 
It  is  probable,  then,  that  Jesus  used  the  terms 
Father  and  Son,  of  God  and  himself,  very  freely 
all  through  his  life.  He  did  not  indicate  any¬ 
where  by  their  use  an  idea  of  physical  genera¬ 
tion  through  a  miraculous  conception,  nor  did 
he  give  to  the  terms  a  metaphysical  content  such 
as  they  undoubtedly  afterward  came  to  hold, 
under  the  influences  of  a  growing  doctrinal  appre¬ 
hension  of  the  gospel.  He  seems  to  have  used 
these  terms  of  relationship  first  to  express  his 
sense  of  a  close  and  constant  dependence  upon 
God,  and  to  have  filled  them  with  warmth  of  a 
fresh  and  vital  affection.  As  he  grew  up  into 
the  consciousness  of  his  mission,  as  the  teacher 
and  leader  of  his  people,  to  a  fuller  and  more 
spiritual  conception  of  religion,  he  saw  that  these 
terms  expressed  precisely  the  relationship  in 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


163 


which  every  true  child  of  God  should  stand  with 
« / 

Him.  Hence  he  emphasized  the  ethical  content 
of  sonship,  and  declared  in  the  beatitude  that  the 
peacemakers  shall  be  called  the  children  of  God. 
Still  he  used  the  term  Son  of  God  as  peculiarly 
adapted  to  express  his  own  private  relationship 
to  the  Father,  not  only  because  of  the  perfection 
of  his  ethical  life  and  the  fulness  of  his  love,  but 
also  doubtless  because  of  a  certain  official  accent 
in  the  title  Son  of  God  which  was  hereditary  in 
the  nation  as  the  characteristic  of  both  the  Israel- 
itish  people  and  the  ideal  king  who  was  to  realize 
in  higher,  spiritual  fruition,  the  kingdom  of  which 
prophets  and  saints  had  dreamed  so  long.  He 
taught  a  universal  Fatherhood  of  God,  by  the 
birds  the  Father  feeds,  and  the  flowers  his  love 
clothes.1  “  If  ye  then,  being  evil,”  said  he, 
‘'know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your  chil¬ 
dren,  how  much  more  shall  your  Father  who 
is  in  heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask 
him  ?  ” 

As  in  every  phase  of  his  development,  he  did 
not  find  this  idea  in  his  environment  or  in  the 
ancient  history  of  his  people  and  adopt  it  as  his 
own.  He  found  it  first  within  his  own  soul,  and 
nourished  it  there  until  its  rich  and  overflowing 
life  drew  to  itself  the  more  formal  and  less  per- 

1  Matt.  6:  26-32. 


164 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


sonal  phases  of  sonship  in  king  and  nation,  and 
thus  the  whole  was  spiritualized  for  him  and  made 
one.  This  is  apparent  in  the  parables  which 
involve  the  idea  of  sonship  to  God.  In  the 
parable  of  The  Vineyard,  if  the  Jewish  folk,  not 
the  Messiah,  is  the  “beloved  Son,”  king  and 
nation  were  as  one;  and  in  that  of  The  Wed¬ 
ding  Feast  he  is  the  “king’s  son,”  without  a 
doubt. 

One  other  title  is  given  to  Jesus  in  Mark 
(10:  47)  by  blind  Bartimseus  who  was  rebuked 
for  calling  him  “Thou  son  of  David.”  When 
he  came  near  to  Jesus,  he  addressed  him  as 
Rabboni,  thus  placing  him  upon  the  same  level 
with  the  teachers  who  healed  in  their  streets, 
and  making  the  other  title  of  no  worth.  This 
story  is  paralleled  in  Matthew  (20:  30,  31)  by 
the  account  of  the  healing  of  two  blind  men  who 
also  address  Jesus  as  “son  of  David.”  The 
same  title  is  found  in  the  mouth  of  the  Canaan- 
itish  woman,1  and  may  account  for  his  strange 
answer,  in  which  we  feel  there  is  so  little  of  the 
gentle,  service-seeking,  compassionate  Jesus.  The 
woman,  choosing  a  distinctively  Jewish  title,  set 
herself  over  against  him  and  alienated  him  from 
the  beginning,  in  spite  of  her  prayer  and  her 
deep  desire  for  the  cure  of  her  child.  That  may 

1  Matt.  15:  22. 


THE  MESSIANIC  TITLES 


165 


suggest  also  why  she  vexed  the  disciples,  with  her 
racial  antipathy.  Jesus  held  back  his  gift  of 
healing  until  “she  came  and  worshipped  him, 
saying,  Lord,  help  me,”  and  even  humbled  her 
pride  enough  for  her  to  apply  his  drastic  figure 
to  herself  and  strip  herself  of  all  that  stood 
between  her  heart  and  him. 

The  shout  of  the  multitude  and  of  children 
along  the  way  from  Bethphage  to  Jerusalem  1 
at  the  triumphal  entry  proclaimed  him,  “  Son  of 
David,”  and  to  the  indignant  rebuke  of  the 
scribes  Jesus  replied  by  a  quotation  from  the 
Eighth  Psalm,  so  as  to  imply  his  full  approval 
of  the  song  they  sang.  Jesus  also  used  the  title 
to  confound  the  Pharisees  as  to  the  Messiah.2 
From  these  and  parallel  passages  it  may  be  in¬ 
ferred  that  Jesus  did  not  set  any  value  upon  this 
title.  It  was  too  much  in  keeping  with  the  politi¬ 
cal  and  material  aspirations  of  the  Jews.  It 
would  have  brought  him  into  difficulty  had  he 
employed  it  freely.  He  never  used  it  himself 
of  himself,  as  far  as  we  know,  nor  did  he  seek  to 
guard  it  against  assault  as  of  significance  for  his 
cause. 

The  Fourth  Gospel,  of  inestimable  value  in 
bringing  to  us  knowledge  of  the  developing 
thought  concerning  Jesus,  is  too  remote  in  its 
1  Matt.  21:  9,  15.  2  Matt.  22:  42. 


166 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


final  form,  and  is  too  subject  to  the  Philonic 
philosophy,  to  be  trustworthy  in  tracing  out  the 
earliest  tradition  and  the  actual  use  of  words 
and  phrases  by  our  Lord,  especially  the  title 
Son  of  God. 


CHAPTER  IX 

JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 

Jesus  left  no  written  words,  but  his  teaching 
was  engraved  upon  human  hearts.  It  was 
therefore  always  vitalized,  and  if  we  have  not 
received  as  much  as  would  have  been  our  portion 
had  he  committed  his  thoughts  to  writing,  we 
have  a  purer  and  more  characteristic  tradition 
than  any  written  words  could  have  conveyed. 
Nor  have  we  any  system  of  thought  which  we  can 
ascribe  to  Jesus.  He  was  not  a  maker  of  theolo¬ 
gies  nor  a  formulator  of  doctrines.  His  mind 
was  so  absorbed  with  the  immediate  needs  of  the 
men  and  women  before  and  around  him  that  he 
poured  out  his  messages  to  them  in  the  most 
vital  and  simple  expression  of  his  mind.  His 
thought  was  clear  but  not  organized  into  a  sys¬ 
tem.  It  was  both  universal  and  profound,  but 
poured  into  the  molds  at  hand  in  common 
speech  and  familiar  thought.  It  was  not  philo¬ 
sophically  novel,  for  that  would  have  savored  of 
the  schools,  but  all  he  said  was  characterized  by 
a  certain  pregnancy  which  preserved  his  sayings 

167 


168 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


in  men’s  minds.  He  did  not  try  to  convince  the 
reason  so  much  as  to  move  the  heart  of  man 
through  the  reason.  His  aim  was  always  fixed 
upon  the  life  rather  than  upon  the  intellect. 
No  teacher  ever  made  so  profound  an  impression 
upon  the  world.  Yet  no  one  of  the  world’s  great 
teachers  left  so  little  of  his  own  words,  or  seemed 
so  careless  of  the  form  of  his  thought.  He 
taught  most  truly  by  his  life,  and  his  words  were 
in  a  sense  casual  and  non-essential.  Neverthe¬ 
less  in  them  lies  truth  not  yet  extracted,  and  sug¬ 
gestion  of  form  and  method  of  greatest  value. 
The  Gospels  have  preserved  for  us  some  samples 
of  his  teaching,  to  which  we  must  give  heed.  We 
shall  examine  the  content  of  his  mind  first,  and 
then  seek  out  the  method  of  his  teaching. 

I.  The  Content  of  the  Mind  of  Christ 

We  have  the  mind  of  Christ  reflected  to  us 
from  the  occasional  and  very  scrappy  remnants 
of  his  teachings  preserved  by  the  early  disciples 
and  written  out  at  length  in  the  four  Gospels. 
Although  the  medium  through  which  they  have 
passed  must  have  discolored  and  altered  them 
in  many  ways,  there  is  so  much  of  distinct  and 
harmonious  character  to  them  that  we  can  be 
reasonably  assured  that  we  have  a  considerable 
body  of  teachings  which  can  be  relied  upon  to 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


169 


give  us  knowledge  of  the  thought  of  Jesus  upon 
many  sides.  We  shall  consider  his  attitude 
toward  God,  toward  the  Kingdom,  toward  man, 
toward  nature,  and  toward  current  thought  and 
opinion. 

1.  His  attitude  toward  God.  —  The  Father¬ 
hood  of  God  was  the  organic  principle  of  his 
teaching.  He  had  learned  it  in  the  experiences 
of  his  life,  and  by  this  truth  he  had  been  led  into 
all  other  truth.  Out  of  it  were  generated  by 
natural  processes  his  idea  of  the  Kingdom,  of 
man’s  place  in  the  world,  and  of  the  world  itself, 
God  was  his  Father  and  the  Father  of  all  men. 
“  My  Father,  and  your  Father,  ”  he  said,  with  the 
same  assurance  that  entered  into  the  words,  “  My 
God,  and  your  God,”  to  one  who  knew  but  one 
God.1  Kinship  with  God  and  his  fatherly  care 
were  the  basal  factors  in  his  faith  and  in  his 
message  of  love  and  confidence.  He  did  not 
stop  in  any  metaphysical  union,  but  carried  his 
relation  out  into  the  ethics  of  daily  life.  He 
himself  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  all  men  ought 
to  be.2  God  bears  only  a  good  will  toward  all, 
and  calls  them  into  his  companionship  (Matt. 
5:  44-48). 

The  Old  Testament  gave  Jesus  abundant 

1  Matt.  5:  16,  44,  45;  6:  26;  11:  27;  23:  9;  Mark  1:  11; 
11 :  25.  2  Luke  15: 19;  Matt.  5:  45;  John  1 :  12. 


170 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


foundation  for  this  thought.1  It  lay  there  un¬ 
developed  and  unappreciated  until  he  took  it  up 
and  through  his  experience  made  it  dominant 
in  his  life  and  teaching.  The  common  thought 
of  his  own  day  had  so  far  removed  God  from 
human  contact  or  interest  that  there  was  no  idea 
of  a  vital  relationship  between  the  race  and  its 
Creator.  To  overthrow  this  settled  conviction 
and  supplant  it  with  the  glowing  affection  and 
close  attachment  of  a  family  connection,  was  the 
bold  and  innovating  purpose  of  Jesus.  Only 
the  utmost  confidence  in  his  own  status  with 
the  Father  could  have  enabled  him  to  venture 
upon  so  revolutionary  a  course.  Only  the  vital 
truth  in  his  message  made  it  possible  of  any 
realization.  And  he  did  not  compromise  in  his 
interpretation  of  Fatherhood.  It  was  a  true 
love-relation,  seeking  the  response  of  love. 
Obedience  as  the  sign  of  response,  and  the  com¬ 
munion  with  the  Father  in  exalted  harmony, 
must  followx  He  did  not  in  the  least  decrease 
the  exaltation  of  God  as  supreme  in  his  holiness, 
but  he  opened  up  to  man  the  chance  of  sharing 
in  the  nobility  of  his  character. 

2.  The  attitude  of  Jesus  toicard  the  Kingdom. 
—  The  idea  of  the  Kingdom  in  the  mind  of  Jesus 
depended  closely  upon  his  idea  of  God  and  his 
1  Isa.  63:  16;  Mai.  1:  6;  Hos.  2:  1;  Jer.  31:  9,  20. 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


171 


personal  relation  to  the  Father,  out  from  which 
all  his  more  formal  teachings  flowed.  It  is  safe 
to  say  that  these  were  characteristic  ideas :  (a)  It 
was  not  a  political  but  a  spiritual  Kingdom. 
His  nation  had  always  clung  to  the  political  ideal 
as  essential  to  the  spiritual.  It  was  characteristic 
of  Jesus  that  he  turned  the  other  way,  and  used 
the  political  only  as  a  servant  of  the  inner  state. 
He  defined  each  clearly,  and  differentiated  them 
in  his  mind.  “The  Kingdom  of  God  is  within 
you,”  he  told  his  followers,  and  himself  relied 
upon  no  chance  of  earthly  power  or  organized 
force.  ( b )  He  probably  used  the  current  phrase 
“kingdom  of  heaven’’  in  the  sense  that  it  was  of  a 
heavenly  character  and  belonged  to  the  sphere 
of  thought  where  God  rules  supreme,  (c)  He 
united  in  one  conception  the  apocalyptic  message 
of  a  future  Kingdom  and  the  demand  for  imme¬ 
diate  relief  of  those  who  waited  for  the  consola¬ 
tions  of  Israel,  producing  a  new  and  larger  realm 
of  immediate  presence  in  that  unbounded  world 
of  spiritual  existence,  which  to  him  was  not 
separated  from  life  here,  but  was  continuous 
with,  and  indivisible  from,  our  earthly  life. 
(d)  Thus  he  was  not  exclusively  eschatological, 
nor  was  he  entirely  ethical  in  his  teachings  about 
the  Kingdom.  He  was  both.  He  was  eschato¬ 
logical  in  looking  to  the  future  for  the  realization 


172 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


in  its  majesty  of  his  ideal,  and  he  was  ethical  in 
his  insistence  upon  the  principles,  the  practise 
of  which  was  to  bring  the  Kingdom  in  on  earth. 
Neither  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew  nor  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  Mark  can  be  set  apart  alone 
as  representative.  Both  belong  in  his  picture 
of  the  ideal  Kingdom.  But  both  must  be  inter¬ 
preted  from  his  spiritual  standpoint,  and  seen 
through  the  medium  of  his  close  touch  with  his 
Father  in  perfect  love.  Neither  one  can  be 
taken  literally,  for  both  have  their  poetic  ele¬ 
ments.  ( e )  This  Kingdom  was  to  grow  from 
small  beginnings,  and  was  to  become  universal. 
He  began  his  ministry  preaching,  not  himself, 
but  the  Kingdom.  He  is  reported  by  Mark 
as  bringing  “  The  gospel  of  the  kingdom  of 
God.”1  He  recognized  a  preparation  for  it  in 
the  past,  a  consecution  in  history  in  which 
he  and  his  message  were  to  be  but  a  link. 
“The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  at  hand:  repent  ye,  and  believe  the 
gospel.”2  To  this  end  he  demanded  a  moral 
preparation  in  repentance,  and  a  special  life- 
relation  to  it  in  a  committing  faith  that  was  to 
allv  all  conduct  with  it  henceforth.  Most  of  his 

t ✓ 

teaching  was  an  expounding  of  this  new  and 
startling  idea,  with  exhortation  to  men  to  enter 
1  Mark  1:  14.  2  Mark  1:  15. 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


173 


into  that  for  which  they  had  long  waited.  Here 
he  joined  himself  most  closely  to  his  people  and 
current  aspirations,  while  lifting  thought  and 
stimulating  ideas  and  touching  life  as  the  old 
Jewish  notion  had  failed  to  do. 

3.  His  attitude  toward  man.  —  Jesus  recog¬ 
nized  and  emphasized  the  value  of  man  as  no 
other  teacher  has  ever  done.  He  looked  upon 
all  men  as  at  least  potentially  the  children  of 
God.  As  such  they  were  beyond  price.1  A 
single  soul  is  worth  the  whole  world.2  Matter 
cannot  stand  in  comparison  with  him,  nor  all 
good  things.3  For  this  reason  rebellion  against 
God,  the  refusal  of  the  divine  rights  of  the  soul 
through  sin,  is  a  most  terrible  thing.4  It  was  his 
especial  mission  to  rescue  such  as  wrere  thus  being 
lost,  and  to  restore  them  to  their  Father’s  house. 
He  w~as  called  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners.5 
He  never  seems  to  have  despaired  of  any  man. 
There  w^as  always  hope  for  the  worst  and  the 
weakest  of  them.  Society  he  did  not  divide  up 
into  twTo  classes  distinct  from  each  other,  the  one 
class  good,  the  other  evil.  In  fact,  he  discovered 
that  those  most  open  to  his  appeals  were  precisely 
those  who  wrere  usually  condemned  as  “  sinners,” 

1  Mark  8:  36,  37;  Matt.  16:  26.  «  Matt.  5:  21,  22. 

2  Luke  9:  25.  s  Matt.  11:19. 

3  Matt.  6:  25;  Luke  12:  15-21. 


176 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


“beauty  is  its  own  excuse  for  being,”  because  it 
is  a  joy  and  a  delight  to  God  and  to  his  open- 
eyed  children.  It  may  be  that  Jesus  came 
nearer  to  our  modern  conception  of  animate 
nature  than  his  contemporaries,  for  it  seemed 
all  instinct  with  his  Father’s  spirit  and  alive  with 
his  fostering  care.  It  gave  him  spiritual  re¬ 
freshment,  when  he  escaped  from  men  and  all 
that  man  had  made,  to  spend  hours  or  entire 
nights  alone  with  God  in  the  midst  of  his  fresh 
creation,  separated  from  him  only  by  the  thin 
garment  of  living  things.  He  had  considered 
the  lilies,  and  like  them  had  learned  to  receive 
what  God  gave  and  to  grow  thereby,  rejecting 
the  useless  and  harmful  while  he  assimilated 
the  nourishing  and  the  wholesome. 

Jesus  added  nothing  to  our  knowledge  of  the 
natural  world.  His  attitude  could  not  have  been 
that  of  the  scientist.  He  looked  not  so  much  at 
things  as  through  them.  He  sought  not  the 
method  of  their  being  but  the  message  they 
brought  from  the  Creator.  He  did  not  get 
caught  in  the  modern  problems  of  the  overplus 
of  blossoms,  and  note  how  nature  ravins  red  in 
tooth  and  claw.  He  saw  the  kindlier  side  of 
life,  and  felt  the  sacredness  of  growth,  a  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  worth  of  man  whom  all  things 
serve.  For  to  him  nature  was  never  an  end  in 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


177 


itself,  but  ever  a  means  of  higher  life.  The 
Greeks  fell  into  the  habit  of  adoring  the  inani¬ 
mate  thins:  of  beauty.  Jesus  always  beheld  in  it 
a  way  into  the  temple’s  holier  presence,  which 
unseen  must  be  adored.  Man  was  always 

«y 

above  nature,  and  God  over  all.  Nature  was 
to  be  used  for  the  good  of  man,  and  he  was  to 
find  in  it  the  simplest  book  of  God’s  love. 

Anything  like  the  modern  conception  of 
natural  law  was  far  from  the  mind  of  Jesus. 
He  saw  an  immediate  connection  of  God  with 
life  and  all  creative  forces,  and  believed  that  God 
could  and  did  act  directly  upon  and  in  nature  to 
produce  effects.  The  idea  of  the  times  was, 
that  God  controlled  all  things  through  his  min- 
istering  spirits,  and  Jesus  gives  no  sign  of  having 
departed  from  it,  excepting  that  he  eliminated 
angelic  mediaries  and  brought  God  and  the 
world  together.  As  a  faithful  Son  he  acted  in 
accordance  with  this  belief,  and  expected  that 
God  would  work  for  and  with  him  in  nature, 
in  accordance  with  the  divine  wisdom  and  for 
the  highest  interests  of  men.  Whatever  was 
mysterious  he  referred  to  the  working  of  God 
immediately,  or  possibly  to  the  baleful  operations 
of  evil  spirits  seeking  to  antagonize  God  and 
do  harm  to  men.  Any  other  conception  as  to 
natural  forces  would  have  been  incomprehensible 


178 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


to  his  followers,  and  indeed  was  incomprehensible 
even  after  Christianity  had  been  established  on 
the  earth  for  many  centuries.  Yet  the  simple 
faith  of  Jesus  in  the  constant  presence  and  activity 
of  his  Father  in  all  things  was  really  very  close 
to  the  modern  Christian  pantheism  so  widely 
held  throughout  the  world.  The  outcome  of  a 
reasoned  faith  in  harmony  with  modern  science 
turns  back  to  the  point  of  view  of  Him  who  said, 
“My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work.” 

5.  His  attitude  toward  current  thought  and 
opinions.  —  Jesus  was  a  child  of  his  time  and 
race,  as  far  as  mental  equipment  is  concerned. 
He  never  claimed  any  superior  intelligence,  as 
to  history  or  science  or  any  of  the  realms  of 
scholarship.  His  mind  was  acute  and  active. 
But  he  did  not  set  himself  up  as  an  authority 
upon  any  debated  questions  of  the  schools.  He 
was  a  master  in  religion,  and  never  hesitated  to 
stand  as  such  in  the  province  of  the  soul  and  all 
its  interests.  He  openly  confessed  that  to  him 
as  to  others  the  minor  matters  of  time  and  things 
were  concealed,  while  he  gave  his  undivided 
attention  to  the  affairs  of  eternity.  The  current 
views  he  would  have  adopted  as  a  matter  of 
necessity,  that  he  might  not  be  excluded  from 
intercourse  with  his  neighbors.  Toward  the 
state  and  all  questions  of  law  he  adopted  the  rule 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


179 


of  obedience,  save  where,  as  in  the  exactions  of 
the  scribes,  law  transgressed  the  rights  of  his 
free  conscience.  So  superior  was  he  in  mind  to 
the  petty  quibbles  about  forms  and  details,  that 
he  had  no  eve  for  them,  and  with  amazement 
and  pity  realized  how  large  they  bulked  in  the 
minds  of  many  of  his  generation  who  tithed  mint 
and  anise  and  cummin.  Questions  of  Jewish 
history  he  had  no  time  to  investigate,  but  adopted 
current  theories.  If  he  ever  heard  the  question 
raised  as  to  who  wrote  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  he 
did  not  attempt  to  discuss  it,  for  what  had  that 
to  do  with  his  mission  in  the  world  ?  Will  any 
one  be  saved  or  lost  by  their  belief  as  to  the 
authors  of  a  book  ?  He  spoke,  like  every  one 
else,  according  to  the  current  opinion.  We  do 
not  know  of  a  single  simply  intellectual  issue 
raised  by  Jesus,  nor  of  one  single  opinion  of  his 
upon  subjects  in  the  field  of  pure  intellect.  He 
was  single-minded  in  his  prosecution  of  a  greater 
mission.  When  he  spoke  incidentally  of  ‘‘the 
Book  of  Moses  ”  1  or  prefaced  a  quotation  with 
the  words  “David  himself  said,”2  he  gave  no 
authority  for  quoting  him  in  a  modern  discussion 
as  to  authorship  of  certain  books.  So  too  in  his 
reference  to  Jonah,3  to  Satan,4  and  evil  spirits,5 

^£*^12:26.  4  Matt.  4:10. 

2  Mark  12:  36.  s  Matt.  12:  43-45. 

3  Matt.  12:  41,  42;  Luke  11:  29-32. 


180 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


and  many  other  matters  of  changing  opinion 
without  importance  to  the  soul  of  man.  Physical 
science,  literary  criticism,  theology  even,  were  not 
matters  of  great  concern  with  Jesus.  They  did 
not  present  themselves  as  questions  for  solution 
to  his  mind,  or  else  he  felt  them  to  be  of  such 
minor  import  that  he  did  not  pronounce  upon 
them.  “  He  spoke  in  pictures,  not  in  syllogisms.” 1 

When  we  come  to  the  sphere  of  religion,  in 
which  Jesus  may  with  all  reverence  be  called  a 
genius,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  differ  widely  from 
his  times  and  all  times.  He  connected  himself 
closely  with  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  developed  prophetic  spirit  in  distinction  from 
priestly  offices.  He  did  not  have  much  patience 
with  the  ritual  of  the  temple  or  the  requirements 
of  the  law.  And  he  took  advanced  ground  upon 
certain  current  issues.  He  denied  the  efficacy 
of  fasting  as  his  formal  countrymen  practised 
it.2  He  could  not  endure  the  tyranny  of  the 
institutionalism  which  made  the  Sabbath  a 
barren,  inhuman  day.3  The  nice  discrimination 
between  clean  and  unclean,  according  to  estab¬ 
lished  laws  of  great  complexity,  he  would  not 
tolerate.4  And  as  to  sacrifice,  which  many 

1  Milirhead. 

2  Mark  2:  18,  19;  Matt.  6:  16-18. 

3  Matt.  12:  12;  Mark  2:  23ff.  4  Mark  7:  15-19. 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


181 


Christian  scholars  have  made  the  nearest  point 
of  contact  of  the  Jewish  with  the  Christian  faith, 
Jesus  repudiated  it  as  an  unwarranted  rite, 
wherever  mercy  and  righteousness  and  the 
sacrifice  of  a  humble  and  contrite  heart  were 
wanting,  and  useless  when  these  were  present.1 
He  was  strikingly  original  in  his  religious  teach¬ 
ings,  because  he  was  so  simple  and  so  sure  that 
his  positions  were  true  and  ample.  The  an¬ 
tagonism  of  institutionalism  was  inevitable  for 
one  so  individualistic  and  spiritual,  but  he  was  as 
simple  in  the  statement  of  his  faith  as  in  its  con¬ 
tent,  and  as  bold  in  proclaiming  it  as  he  was 
assured  that  it  was  ultimate,  and  came  from 
God  directly  to  his  soul.  At  first  his  utterances, 
falling  upon  the  ears  of  the  common  people 
whose  hearts  were  tender,  and  in  Galilee  where 
the  priest  had  no  such  firm  control,  did  not  rouse 
so  much  opposition  as  at  a  later  day  when  priest 
and  Pharisee  confronted  him.  “  The  common 
people  heard  him  gladly.”  The  institutions  and 
their  defenders  were  scandalized  at  the  bare  sim¬ 
plicity  of  his  teaching,  and  fought  him  for  their  life. 

II.  The  Method  of  His  Teaching 

His  intimate  consciousness  of  God  made  Jesus 
keen  for  truth  everywhere  and  always.  He 
1  Matt.  9:  13;  12:  7;  Mark  12:  28-34. 


182 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


dwelt  in  the  real,  and  reality  was  essential  to  all 
his  thinking.  Hence  his  teaching  was  not  so 
much  negative  as  positive.  The  entire  teaching 
of  his  people  was  based  upon  the  method  of 
negation.  “  Thou  shalt  not  ”  was  the  sum  and 
substance  of  it.  Jesus  based  his  message  upon 
the  positive  side  of  truth,  which  is  the  method  of 
robustness,  as  negation  is  the  act  of  a  weakened 
intellect.1  He  was  not  attempting  to  exclude, 
but  to  include.  He  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to 
fulfil,  both  the  partial  law  of  negation  and  the 
wide  reaches  of  life.  He  spoke  as  one  who  knew 
whereof  he  spoke.  He  was  convinced  that  he 
uttered  the  will  of  God  in  all  purity  and  vital 
completeness.  Hence  he  had  to  speak  positively 
and  with  authority. 

He  seems  to  have  employed  several  forms  of 
speech  in  teaching,  which  have  their  significance 
in  the  study  of  his  development,  and  also  give 
hints  of  pedagogical  values.  He  adopted  the 
long-tried  methods  of  the  wise  rabbis,  of  sen¬ 
tentious  sayings  and  epigrammatic  expressions 
that  possess  a  bur-like  propensity  to  stick  to  the 
mind.  He  often  resorted  to  paradox  and  hyper¬ 
bole  to  make  men  think.  One  common  phrase 
he  used  in  introducing  a  lesson  or  sermon  was, 

1  “A  man  is  usually  right  in  his  affirmations,  and  wrong 
in  his  negations.”  —  F.  D.  Maurice. 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


183 


“  What  think  ye  ?  ”  Again,  he  taught  by  his  own 
outward  act,  as  in  the  washing  of  his  disciples’ 
feet,  or  by  the  action  of  others  which  he  had  in¬ 
duced  or  singled  out  as  a  lesson  for  them.  Many 
of  his  miracles  were  lessons  taught  in  this  graphic 
style,  parables  in  deed.  But  the  most  striking 
method  of  teaching  he  employed  was  that  of 
parables.  Here  again  he  adopted  a  common 
method  of  his  people,  but  so  far  did  he  excel  them 
all,  that  he  stands  out  preeminent  among  the 
teachers  of  the  world  as  a  maker  of  parables  to 
serve  as  vehicles  of  truth.  Nothing  is  more  cer¬ 
tain  in  all  tradition  than  that  we  have  the  orig¬ 
inals  of  at  least  many  of  the  parables  attributed 
to  him  in  the  Gospels.  Through  them  we  ap¬ 
proach  with  assurance  the  inner  life  and  the 
actual  mind  of  Christ. 

What  pedagogical  art  did  Jesus  practise,  if 
indeed  he  was  either  consciously  or  unconsciously 
seeking  to  employ  the  best  methods  in  his  teach¬ 
ing  ?  From  the  fact  that  the  world’s  best  teachers 
have  never  ceased  to  revert  to  him,  and  still  find 
in  his  meager  lessons  preserved  to  us  a  mine  of 
information  and  suggestion  regarding  their  art 
and  craft,  it  seems  impossible  to  deny  that  Jesus 
did,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously,  use  the 
greatest  skill  in  his  work.  His  country  was  over¬ 
run  with  Pharisees,  who  sought  with  unquench- 


184 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


able  zeal  to  establish  schools  of  the  law  in  every 
town  and  village,  and  in  every  tongue  and  dia¬ 
lect.  They  had  made  teaching  their  special 
vocation  for  two  hundred  years.  Like  the 
Jesuits  in  the  sixteenth  century  in  Europe,  they 
were  masters  of  the  art  according  to  their  pur¬ 
poses.  Jesus  came  in  contact  with  them  from 
his  youth.  He  studied  their  ways  more  and  more 
as  he  grew  into  consciousness  that  in  him  the 
truth  was  planted  which  his  people  needed  to 
hear.  When  at  last  he  began  his  task  after  his 
baptism,  it  is  at  least  probable  that  he  had  given 
much  careful  thought  to  the  manner  of  putting 
truth.  He  began  where  his  hearers  stood,  in 
the  popular  idea  of  the  Kingdom.  In  truth,  his 
first  gospel  seems  a  mere  echo  of  that  of  John 
the  Baptist.  And  he  used  the  forceful,  striking 
method  of  epigram  to  shoot  his  truth  like  arrows 
into  the  minds  and  hearts  of  his  hearers.  Mat¬ 
thew  evidently  had  the  proper  ear  for  words,  and 
a  mind  for  word-values,  which  has  made  him  the 
channel  through  which  have  come  down  to  us  so 
many  of  the  pointed  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  Mark’s 
sketchy  style  is  peculiarly  adapted  to  these 
word-pictures.  Crisp  phrases  startled  sluggish 
minds  and  jostled  them  out  of  the  ruts  of  tra¬ 
dition.  They  are  the  most  marked  character¬ 
istic  of  the  earlier  teaching  of  Jesus,  as  far  as  we 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


185 


are  warranted  in  arranging  what  we  have  in 
sequence  of  time.  He  had  first  the  task  of  awak¬ 
ing  the  minds  and  reaching  the  hearts  of  his 
hearers;  then  he  could  give  them  instruction. 
Had  he  begun  with  the  stories  of  his  Kingdom, 
they  would  have  been  wasted  upon  ears  that 
heard  not,  and  eyes  that  saw  not  would  have 
failed  to  take  in  the  pictures  he  spread  before 
them. 

The  parables  came  later  in  the  ministry  of 
Jesus.  They  are  called  the  vehicles  for  con¬ 
veying  to  the  people  “  the  mysteries  of  the  king¬ 
dom.”1  They  are  frequently  introduced  with 
the  phrase  “The  kingdom  of  heaven  is.”  They 
were  useful  only  to  those  who  had  some  insight 
into  truth  as  Jesus  saw  it.  At  the  same  time  they 
embody  truth  in  such  a  way  that  it  abides  and 
often  unfolds  itself  gradually,  even  when  the 
mind  has  retained  them  long  for  their  simple 
interest  or  beauty. 

Quite  as  striking  to  modern  students  as  his 
words  is  the  reticence  of  Jesus.  We  have  at 
best  only  partial  glimpses  of  his  teaching,  but 
this  silence  when  one  would  expect  speech  seems 
a  part  of  his  method  rather  than  a  lack  of  correct 
and  full  reporting.  He  had  an  evident  purpose 
in  restraining  speech  concerning  himself  from 

1  Matt.  13:  11. 


186 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


the  first.  He  kept  his  person  in  the  background, 
and  set  forth  the  Kingdom,  with  the  purpose  to 
gain  contact  with  current  thinking  and  to  lead 
the  people  from  the  known  and  general  to  the 
unknown  and  particular.  He  cautioned  those 
he  healed  against  telling  of  the  cure.1  All  such 
cautions  and  precautions  cease  at  the  event  which 
brought  out  the  apostles’  confession  in  Peter’s 
words  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  From  that  day  on 
there  was  no  further  need  of  secrecy.  His  entire 
relation  to  the  apostles  and  to  the  people  and  to 
his  mission  changed. 

This  reticence  of  his  was  not  due  to  any  feel¬ 
ing  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  Messianic  title  to 
express  what  he  felt  within  his  soul.  It  was 
rather  to  avoid  misconceptions  based  upon  the 
popular  ideal  of  a  marvelous  king  sent  full- 
grown  from  heaven  with  bloody  sword  and  mighty 
mien  to  conquer  Rome  and  establish  judgment 
on  the  earth.  So  easily  inflamed  was  the  pub¬ 
lic  temper  that  it  would  have  been  easy  to  pre¬ 
cipitate  an  insurrection  which  he  could  neither 
control  nor  approve.  He  had  to  create  an  at¬ 
mosphere  first  of  all.  The  difficulty  he  had  in 
establishing  his  own  disciple-group  in  the  new* 
ideas  after  Caesarea  Philippi  is  evidence  enough 
to  show  how  needful  his  tact  of  silence  wras. 

1  Mark  1:  44;  3:  12;  5:  43;  7:  36;  8:  26,  30. 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


187 


Teaching  by  action  was  more  in  evidence 
toward  the  end  of  his  ministry  than  earlier, 
because  by  that  time  his  spirit  was  better  under¬ 
stood,  and  it  was  possible  to  interpret  his  deeds 
in  the  light  of  experience.  The  triumphal  entry 
into  Jerusalem  was  doubtless  a  pedagogical  act, 
although  it  was  in  no  sense  a  bid  for  popular 
action  in  rescuing  him  and  his  doomed  cause 
from  defeat.  He  emphasized  in  it  the  very 
characteristics  which  he  had  been  insisting  upon 
as  essential  features  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom. 
Peace,  not  war;  humility,  not  pride;  gentleness, 
not  force;  joy,  not  grief;  and  above  all,  the 
spiritual  over  against  the  earthly  life;  these 
things  he  suggested  graphically  as  he  rode  into 
the  city.  The  cleansing  of  the  temple  was  not 
done  for  its  own  sake  so  much  as  to  teach  men 
one  more  great  lesson  of  reverence  and  right 
relation  to  God,  wdth  sweeping  condemnation 
of  the  materialism  which  turns  everything  holy 
or  profane  to  gain.  Not  that  Jesus  in  the  least 
degree  was  a  “poseur”  and  a  calculating  actor 
or  planner  of  dramatic  situations.  Such  an 
attitude  toward  life  was  the  farthest  possible 
from  his  mind.  It  was  all  full  of  intense  mean¬ 
ing,  and  everything  had  ultimate  spiritual  bear¬ 
ings.  He  related  all  things  to  his  one  end  of 
accomplishing  the  introduction  of  the  Kingdom 


188 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


on  the  earth  into  the  hearts  of  men.  Thus 
every  opportunity  to  speak  or  act  for  the  enforce¬ 
ment  of  his  message  he  was  obliged  to  employ. 
To  this  extent  his  method  was  pedagogical,  and 
the  enduring  success  of  his  short  ministry  and 
exceedingly  brief  and  scrappy  literary  remains 
is  due  to  this  dominant  purpose  and  the  working 
of  it  out  with  all  the  skill  he  could  muster. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  Jesus  was  rhetorical 
in  his  delivery  of  the  message  he  gave.  He  was 
a  man  of  supreme  eloquence.  Whatever  would 
make  his  presentation  of  the  gospel  more  effec¬ 
tive,  whether  by  beauty  or  by  force  or  by 
simplicity,  which  is  the  soul  of  eloquence,  he  care¬ 
fully  cultivated  or  instinctively  adopted  with  the 
unerring  insight  of  genius.  “Never  man  spake 
like  this  man,”  we  may  be  sure.  His  public 
speech  must  have  been  both  winning  and  im¬ 
pressive.  He  courted  beauty  in  it,  and  dressed 
it  with  living  pictures  from  all  familiar  sights 
around  him.  The  gift  of  nature  to  his  language, 
and  the  drapery  of  his  thought  gathered  from 
landscapes  and  common  life,  are  remarkable. 
He  had  a  rich  fancy  which  he  did  not  restrain 
unduly.  He  had  also  an  acute  judgment,  which 
he  exercised  to  the  full.  With  what  masterly 
skill  did  he  select  themes  and  illustrations  for 
his  auditors!  He  was  bold  in  denunciation  and 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


189 


tender  in  sympathy,  quick  in  apprehension  and 
strong  in  reassurance.  Out  of  his  own  heart  he 
appealed  to  other  hearts  of  like  experience. 
The  life  he  lived  can  be  painted  from  the  revela¬ 
tions  he  makes  in  his  words  to  others.  And  all 
is  kept  steadily  within  the  range  of  reality  by  his 
perfect  sanity  and  his  constant  reference  to  the 
familiar  as  a  gateway  into  the  things  beyond. 
The  peasant  life  of  Galilee  affords  him  a  rich 
sphere  for  his  thought  to  work  in.  The  little 
house  of  one  room  where  the  lamp  set  upon  the 
overturned  measure  gives  the  evening  light; 
the  fields  without  clothed  in  the  beauty  of  grass 
and  flowers;  the  birds  of  the  air,  the  lilies  of  the 
field,  the  seed  of  the  sower,  and  the  entire  round 
of  homely  duties  of  farm  and  house;  little  children, 
merchants,  soldiers,  priests,  every  phase  of  life, 
and  every  rank  and  order  of  society  he  touched 
with  his  light  and  enlightening  touch.  The  con¬ 
trast  has  been  made  by  Bossuet  between  the 
illustrations  used  by  Paul  and  those  of  Jesus,  to 
indicate  the  contrast  in  mind  between  the  two. 
The  one  called  upon  the  common  experience  of 
common  men  and  women  and  even  children,  in 
a  fine  simplicity  which  makes  his  teaching  live 
forever.  The  other  relied  upon  temple  and 
forum,  the  teaching  of  the  schools  and  the  ab¬ 
struse  methods  of  the  theologians,  so  that  it  is 


190 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


difficult  to  understand  where  he  is  expressing 
what  to  him  is  universal  truth,  and  where  he  is 
illustrating  a  passing  phase  of  it;  and  the  doctrine 
of  Paul  does  not  serve  the  same  purpose  as  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  which  it  was  intended  to  explain. 

Jesus  manifested  greatest  courage  in  his  teach¬ 
ing.  He  attacked  with  boldness  the  oppressor 
and  the  false  teacher,  wherever  he  met  them  or 
uncovered  their  work.  With  the  very  spirit  of 
Amos  and  Jeremiah  he  impeached  them  for  pre¬ 
tense,  formalism,  self-content,  and  perversion  of 
office  for  selfish  ends.  At  the  same  time  he 
manifested  greatest  compassion  for  the  multitude 
and  identified  himself  with  those  he  sought  to 
help.  He  was  nearer  to  the  popular  tradition 
than  to  the  tradition  of  the  schools,  nearer  to 
those  wdio  lived  by  heart  than  to  those  whose  pride 
of  life  was  in  their  mental  culture.  Yet  he  was 
not  a  teacher  with  any  conscious  principles  of 
pedagogy,  committed  to  a  system  laid  down  in  a 
treatise.  He  was  too  spontaneous  for  that,  and 
his  words  -were  too  free  and  his  thought  was  too 
unsystematic.  He  was  a  prophet,  and  out  of 
his  own  experience  he  taught,  as  his  own  genius 
gave  him  utterance. 

Many  of  the  most  characteristic  words  pre¬ 
served  to  us,  naturally  enough,  were  first  spoken 
to  individuals.  He  was  ever  accessible  to  those 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


191 


who  needed  him.  And  yet  none  of  these  private 
conversations  is  exhausted  in  its  first  application, 
but  contains  vital  elements  which  make  it  still 
serviceable.  He  was  so  eager  to  meet  each  per¬ 
sonal  need  that  he  established  types  of  experi¬ 
ence  which  are  universally  repeated,  and  his 
treatment  is  equally  salutary  for  all.  Ethics 
has  been  called  the  practise  of  the  universal. 
The  ethical  quality  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  gave 
it  breadth  and  permanence.  “  The  universal 
applicability  of  the  gospel,”  said  Paulsen,1  “pro¬ 
ceeds  from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  a  philosophical 
nor  a  theological  system.  Systems  pass  away, 
.  .  .  but  great  poems  are  as  eternal  as  their  sub¬ 
ject,  human  life  itself.” 

Something  must  be  said  about  the  use  of 
words  by  Jesus,  for  he  had  a  high  regard  for 
language  as  a  revelation,  and  evidently  employed 
words  with  care.  Every  idle  word,  he  taught, 
must  be  accounted  for  unto  God,  “for  by  thy 
words  thou  shalt  be  justified,  and  by  thy  words 
thou  shalt  be  condemned.”  “Out  of  the  abun¬ 
dance  of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh.”2  “Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  aw^ay,  but  my  wmrds  shall 
not  pass  away.”  The  man  who  hears  and  does 
according  to  the  words  of  Jesus  shall  be  likened 
to  a  wise  man  building  upon  a  rock.3  He 

1  Ethik,  p.  72.  2  Matt.  12:  34  ff.  s  Matt.  7:  24  ff. 


192 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


declared  that  he  alone  was  the  Teacher  over 
them,  and  all  they  were  brethren.1  The  Fourth 
Gospel  has  seven  such  references  to  his  words 
as  significant  and  of  the  greatest  import.2  He 
insisted  that  his  followers  simplify  their  conversa¬ 
tion,3  and  he  set  them  an  example  in  the  sincerity 
and  the  clarity  of  his  speech,  which  made  the 
people  say  of  him  that  he  did  not  put  the  truth 
as  did  the  scribes,  but  with  a  certain  authority 
born  of  conviction  and  increased  by  a  common 
human  basis  felt  by  all. 

The  parables  of  Jesus  were  stories  drawn  from 
nature,  either  human  or  physical,  in  which  he 
took  up  a  common  incident  or  fact  and  developed 
out  of  it  a  truth  that  is  a  rule  of  life;  or  else  they 
were  drawn  from  his  teeming  fancy  where  he 
wrought  with  artistic  skill  and  higher  realism, 
according  to  his  purpose  or  necessity.  In  the 
parables  was  the  consummation  of  his  art,  and 
the  deepest  revelation  of  his  soul.  They  con¬ 
tain  the  teaching  which  he  regarded  to  be  of 
utmost  importance,  his  maturest  thought. 

Parables  like  those  of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  the 
Good  Samaritan  are  richer  in  both  human  and 
theological  significance  than  even  the  ethical 

1  Matt.  23:  8. 

2  John  6:  68;  8:  31,  51;  12:  48;  14:  23,  24;  15:  3. 

3  Matt.  5:  37. 


JESUS  AS  A  TEACHER 


193 


beauties  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  But  Jesus 
had  a  pedagogical  motive  in  the  order  in  which 
he  used  them.  First  he  sought  conduct,  later 
life  itself.  His  earlier  teaching  was  taken  up 
with  the  facts  of  the  Kingdom,  while  there  was 
more  in  his  later  discourse  concerning  his  person 
and  the  idea  of  God.  But  everywhere  there  was 
a  simplicity  which  is  innocent  of  craft  or  system, 
and  which  led  Pascal  to  say,  “  Jesus  Christ  speaks 
the  greatest  things  so  simply  that  it  seems  as  if 
he  had  never  thought  upon  them.”1 

The  contribution  to  the  world  made  by  Jesus 
as  a  teacher  is  large  and  real,  but  who  can  state 
it  in  set  phrases  or  measure  it  bv  anv  known 
canons  of  the  schools  ?  The  substance  of  it  can¬ 
not  be  found  in  aphorisms,  beatitudes,  or  parables, 
but  in  the  Teacher  himself.  It  has  furnished 

everv  educational  reformer  from  Comenius  to 
*/ 

Pestalozzi  with  the  essence  of  his  new  appeal  for 
a  larger  use  of  personality  and  a  fuller  consecra¬ 
tion  of  the  spiritual  forces  needed  in  the  teacher’s 
art.  If  Jesus  brought  no  new  truths  to  flash 
upon  the  world  their  brilliant  light,  nor  any 
novel  methods,  he  reached  the  hearts  and  lives 
of  his  disciples,  and  by  them  the  life  of  all  man¬ 
kind,  through  the  high  example  and  the  moving 
passion  of  his  life  and  death. 

1  Pensees  et  Lettres,  II,  319. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS 

A  universe  harmoniously  ordered  under  law 
is  the  glory  of  the  thought  of  our  day.  Science 
lays  down  such  a  conception  as  fundamental, 
and  religion  is  prepared  to  agree  with  science. 
For  it  is  the  tendency  of  modern  Christianity 
to  regard  the  universe  as  the  cosmic  revelation 
of  God  who  is  immanent  therein.  There  is  no 
warfare  between  science  and  religion.  They 
look  out  from  different  standpoints  upon  the 
same  scene  and  interpret  the  same  phenomena 
with  different  purpose.  The  one  finds  in  nature 
the  immanent  God  at  work;  the  other  investigates 
the  w^ays  of  his  working.  One  seeks  the  cause ;  the 
other  deals  with  methods.  A  man  can  there¬ 
fore  be  scientist  and  Christian,  for  he  can  pro¬ 
nounce  both  the  word  God  and  the  term  Nature, 
and  each  will  supplement  the  other  in  his  thought. 

The  orthodox  division  of  the  world  into  natural 
and  supernatural  can  no  longer  be  maintained. 
A  new  and  better  orthodoxy  has  been  established,, 
in  which  we  recognize  all  things  as  constituting 

194 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  195 


not  a  dualism,  but  a  Universe.  This  generation 
will  not  be  satisfied  with  a  treatment  of  the 
person  of  Jesus  which  leaves  him  possessed  of 
two  natures,  and  makes  of  him  a  curiosity.  Nor 
can  we  think  of  his  ministry  as  filled  with  actions 
which  are  unaccountable  and  other-worldly.  As 
he  takes  his  place  in  history,  so  he  takes  his  place 
in  humanity,  and  must  be  known  and  analyzed 
as  we  know  any  other  character.  But  this  is  not 
by  any  means  to  reduce  our  conception  of  the 
universe  to  a  crass  materialism,  nor  to  deny  a 
genuine  divinity  to  Jesus  Christ.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  it  is  the  sublimation  of  the  spiritual  with 
which  the  universe  is  instinct,  and  of  which  it 
is  all  and  everywhere  the  expression;  it  is  the 
assertion  of  a  divine  life  in  the  race,  in  every 
member  of  it,  but  extraordinary  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Once  men  believed  in  Christ  because  they  be¬ 
lieved  in  miracles.  Now,  they  believe  the  mir¬ 
acles  because  they  believe  in  Christ.  They  find 
miracles  the  natural  expression  of  an  extraor¬ 
dinary  Person,  harmonizing  action  in  the  physical 
world  with  that  in  the  moral  realm.  Miracles 
are  no  longer  thought  of  as  contradictions  or 
interruptions  of  natural  processes  from  without, 
but  rather  as  the  working  out  in  nature  of  higher 
and  permanent  laws  of  reason  and  the  moral 
order.  They  are  not  to  be  treated  on  the  physi- 


196 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


cal  plane,  but  in  the  sphere  of  personality,  which 
always  transcends  nature.  They  belong  to  free¬ 
dom  and  the  will,  not  to  necessity  and  matter. 
“A  miracle,”  said  Hume,  “is  no  contradiction  to 
the  law  of  cause  and  effect;  it  is  a  newT  effect 
supposed  to  be  produced  by  the  introduction  of 
a  new  cause.”  And  Christianity  insists  upon 
causation  as  originating  in  a  person.  Wherever 
persons  appear  in  the  natural  order,  a  free  acting 
agent  appears,  with  power  to  introduce  new 
causes.  And  these  causes  must  be  measured  by 
the  personality  introduced.  “  Given,  in  short, 
the  Person  of  Christ,”  wrote  Fairbairn,1  “and  it 
is  more  natural  that  he  should,  than  that  he  should 
not,  work  miracles;  they  become  the  proper  and 
spontaneous  manifestations,  the  organic  outcome 
or  revelation,  of  his  actual  or  realized  being. 
Our  supernatural  was  his  natural;  what  we  call 
his  miracles  were  but  the  moral  expressions  of 
his  energy,  as  nature  is  but  the  manifested  activity, 
of  the  immanent  God.” 

The  psychological  faculty  may  claim  as  its 
peculiar  lot  the  entire  realm  of  miracle.  It  is 
the  result  of  exceptional  personality  coming  into 
contact  with  nature.  Thomas  Hill  Green  of 
Oxford  declared  that  the  self-conscious  will  “  is 
not  natural  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term.” 

1  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  p.  153. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  197 


It  is  no  interruption  of  the  uniformity  of  events 
to  have  this  free  will  acting  in  nature  to  change 
and  traverse  and  direct  its  forces.  And  given  a 
perfect  human  will,  in  full  harmony  with  God, 
then  the  action  of  this  will  cannot  be  an  inter¬ 
ference  with  natural  law  and  the  orderly  sequence 
of  events,  even  when  this  will  brings  to  pass 
exceptional  occurrences.  It  does  not  seem  un¬ 
scientific,  therefore,  to  admit  the  possibility  of 
miracles  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  effects  in  nature 
which  neither  physical  forces  nor  ordinary  men 
are  adequate  to  bring  about.  There  was  normally 
about  him  a  spontaneous  activity  in  the  use  of 
psychical  powers  which  must  have  produced 
results  that  seemed  to  his  contemporaries  to  be 
supernatural,  as  they  indeed  were  preternatural, 
because  he  was  a  man  developed  to  the  height  of 
his  humanity.  His  followers  came  thus  to  think 
that  Jesus  could  do  anything,  as  a  child  believes 
that  his  father  can  mend  any  broken  toy  or  re¬ 
store  an  outworn  tool  or  heal  all  wounds. 

We  must  deliver  the  character  of  Jesus  at  all 
costs  from  the  magical  role  which  it  was  natural 
and  indeed  necessary  for  his  disciples  and  their 
successors  to  assign  to  him,  but  which  he  seems 
to  have  refused  to  assume  for  himself.  They  saw 
such  a  character  as  the  only  possible  part  to  be 
played  by  one  who  was  the  Son  of  God,  the 


198 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Messiah,  and  consequently  they  painted  every 
possible  element  in  his  activity  in  supernatural 
colors.  We,  on  the  contrary,  realize  that  law, 
not  its  infraction,  is  the  sign  of  God’s  presence, 
and  we  are  driven  to  the  task  of  bringing  all  the 
reported  miracles  of  Jesus  into  orderly  relation 
to  laws,  either  known,  or  unknown  but  postu¬ 
lated.  The  necessity  is  forced  upon  us  by  the 
very  laws  of  thought  and  the  prevailing  temper 
of  our  times.  This  process  is  not  a  lessening 
of  spiritual  quality,  but  an  extension  of  it  to  re¬ 
gions  where  it  was  shut  out  by  assumptions  which 
were  wedded  forever  to  mystery  and  the  unrelated, 
but  which  must  give  place  to  related  knowledge. 

Let  us  ask  first  what  idea  Jesus  had  as  to  him¬ 
self  with  regard  to  any  unusual  powers;  what  he 
conceived  his  relationship  to  be  to  God;  and 
what  attitude  he  took  toward  miracles.  After 
examining  the  miracles  he  is  reported  to  have 
wrought,  we  can  draw  our  conclusions  as  to  his 
relation  to  the  extraordinary  occurrences  which 
undoubtedly  took  place  during  his  ministry. 

1.  The  idea  of  Jesus  as  to  himself.  —  Jesus 
always  regarded  himself  as  superior  in  his  official 
ministry  to  the  prophets.  Jonah  or  Solomon 
were  not  comparable  to  him;  he  was  greater  than 
these.1  He  was  conscious  of  being  greater 
1  Matt.  11:  41,  42;  Luke  11:  31,  32. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  199 


than  the  temple  or  the  law  or  any  institution  of 
men.  He  gave  himself  generously  to  his  dis¬ 
ciples  always,  but  there  was  a  certain  restraint 
and  claim  of  superiority  wdiich  they  felt,1  as  ap¬ 
pears  not  only  in  the  Synoptists  but  even  more 
in  John.2  He  declared  himself  superior  also  to 
Satan,3  whose  power  he  disestablished  on  earth 
and  overthrew.  He  always  assumed  a  peculiar 
intimacy  with  God  as  his  portion,4  and  lived  in 
constant  communion  with  him.5  The  Gospel 
of  John  abounds  in  references  to  this  God- 
consciousness  of  Jesus.  There  it  is  developed  into 
a  metaphysical  union,  but  in  the  earlier  Gospels 
the  groundwork  for  it  is  laid  in  the  simple  narra¬ 
tive  of  his  withdrawal  into  solitude  for  prayer.6 
“  And  he  spake  a  parable  unto  them  to  this  end, 
that  men  ought  always  to  pray,  and  not  to  faint.7 
It  was  the  inmost  support  of  his  life.  The  cry 
upon  the  cross,  “My  God,  why  hast  thou  for¬ 
saken  me  ?  ”  expressed  the  very  worst  possible 
condition  of  life  for  him,  and  meant  indeed  the 
loss  of  life,  because  his  forces  drew  constantly 

1  Matt.  10:  24,  25;  23:  10;  Luke  6:  40. 

2  John  13:  12-16. 

3  Matt.  12:  26;  Mark  3:  23-27. 

4  Matt.  11:  27;  Luke  10:  22. 

5  Mark  1:  35;  6:  46;  14:  32-42. 

6  Luke  3:  21;  5:  16;  6:  12;  9:  18,  28;  11:  1. 

7  Luke  18:  1. 


200 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


upon  God.  He  undertook  his  mission  as  the 
elect  of  God,  and  felt  himself  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  Father  without  whom  he  could  do 
nothing. 

2.  The  idea  of  Jesus  as  to  the  power  of  God  in 
him.  —  God  was  as  real,  and  as  personal,  to 
Jesus,  as  his  mother  Mary  was  in  the  humble 
home  in  Nazareth.  As  a  child  he  “must  be 
about  his  Father’s  business,”  and  as  a  man  he 
had  no  other  occupation.  With  his  conception 
that  things  were  immediately  in  the  hands  of  his 
Father,  he  must  have  felt  every  possibility  sug¬ 
gested  in  the  Temptation,  and  in  his  mind  he 
cherished  the  sense  of  supernatural  power.  No 
system  of  natural  laws  or  fixed  processes  stood 
between  him  and  the  immediate  activity  of  his 
Father.  “My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I 
work.”  1  So  at  one  were  they  in  purpose  and 
in  power  that  his  disciples  are  warranted  in  put¬ 
ting  into  his  lips  such  bold  words  as  these :  “  I 
and  my  Father  are  one.”2  He  assured  his  cap- 
tors  in  the  last  hours  that  they  should  see  him 
sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power.3  It  was  the 
place  he  was  conscious  of  occupying  continually, 
even  here  on  earth. 

3.  The  idea  of  Jesus  as  to  miracles. — That 
Jesus  held  the  current  opinion  regarding  miracles 

1  John  5:  17.  2  John  10:  30.  3  Mark  14:  62. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  201 


as  attendant  upon  the  Messiah  and  characteristic 
of  his  coming  is  probable.  But  his  own  nature 
was  too  fine  in  quality  and  too  spiritual  in  its 
grasp  to  permit  him  to  rely  upon  any  super¬ 
natural  signs  to  prove  his  identity  or  to  win 
followers.  That  was  settled  at  the  beginning, 
in  his  struggle  pictured  in  the  Temptation. 
When  men  called  for  signs  he  rebuked  them, 
and  declared  the  request  to  be  based  upon  false 
assumptions.1  His  only  “sign”  was  preaching 
like  Jonah’s.  That  was  a  greater  work  in  his 
sight  than  all  his  miracles,  and  he  named  it  as 
the  climax  in  his  reply  to  the  disciples  of  John 
when  their  master  sent  them  to  reassure  his  faith.2 
He  absolutely  refused  to  use  whatever  miracu¬ 
lous  power  he  had  to  establish  himself  in  au¬ 
thority  over  the  popular  credulity. 

Again,  he  could  not  exert  the  same  influence 
always  upon  others,  nor  accomplish  the  same 
results  always.  He  could  not  do  mighty  works 
in  Nazareth,  for  instance,  because  of  unbelief. 
Psychical  conditions  must  be  favorable  to  the 
exercise  of  his  gifts.3  Now  and  then,  as  in  Luke 
5:  17,  behind  the  text  arises  the  assumption  that 
there  were  times  when  the  power  of  the  Lord 
was  not  present  to  heal. 

1  Matt.  16:  1-4;  Mark  8:  llff;  Luke  11:  29. 

2  Luke  7:  22.  3  Matt.  13:  58;  Mark  6:  5  ff. 


202 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


In  another  passage,1  Jesus  suggested  that  the 
working  of  a  miracle  was  for  him  a  harder  thing 
to  do  than  to  forgive  the  sins  of  a  man.  He 
found  it,  as  it  were,  less  an  object  of  his  ministry, 
a  by-product  aside  from  the  main  course  of  his 
life  and  thought.  Yet  there  was  a  certain  spon¬ 
taneity  of  his  miraculous  action,  as  if  it  were  the 
natural  outlet  of  his  sympathy  and  love. 

Healing  Jesus  certainly  did  in  wonderful  ways. 
It  was  a  part  of  the  profession  of  the  rabbi  to  heal 
the  sick.  It  was  a  matter  of  spiritual  rather 
than  physical  treatment,  for  the  Jews  believed 
that  disease  frequently,  if  not  always,  was  a  result 
of  sin,  or  a  punishment  for  it.2  The  demons  all 
about  were  constantly  bringing  in  disease,  and 
he  who  could  remove  sin  could  deliver  from 
sickness;  he  who  could  drive  out  demons  was 
able  to  release  the  possessed.  The  Greek  Sai/xo- 
vlov  occurs  about  sixty  times  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment.  The  belief  in  such  creatures  had  wide 
currency  in  the  two  centuries  adjacent  to  the 
birth  of  Christ,  through  Parsee  and  Greek  in¬ 
fluence.  We  can  form  no  adequate  idea  of  the 
important  part  played  by  them  in  the  religious 
life  of  the  times.  Evidently  Luke  saw  in  the 
power  of  Jesus  to  cast  out  demons  3  a  chief  sign 

1  Luke  5:  23.  2  See  Chapter  II,  p.  41. 

3  Luke  13:  32;  11:  20. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  203 


of  his  Messiahship.  It  was  believed  that  the 
entire  kingdom  of  evil  was  made  subject  to  him,1 
and  the  devil  and  his  angels  were  to  be  destroyed.2 
Jesus  himself  looked  upon  Satan  and  his  demons 
as  holding  in  usurpation  a  portion  of  his  realm 
from  which  he  must  cast  them  out.3  When  he 
found  the  seventy  returning  with  joy  to  report 
their  mastery  of  evil  spirits,  he  beheld  Satan 
fallen  as  lightning  from  his  throne.4 

It  was  a  common  practise  by  exorcism  to  cast 
out  demons.  Josephus 5  reports  that  Solomon 
composed  incantations  for  relieving  disease,  and 
forms  of  exorcism  for  casting  out  demons.  He 
adds,  “  Even  to  the  present  day  this  mode  of  cure 
prevails  among  us  to  a  very  great  extent.”  Jesus 
admitted  that  the  Pharisees  cast  out  devils,6  and 
that  certain  ones  who  were  not  of  his  own  follow¬ 
ing  did  so  in  his  name.  But  his  own  cures  seem 
to  have  surprised  the  people,  because  they  were 
so  free  from  the  exorcist’s  art  and  practise.  He 
preached  and  healed,  in  a  broad  ministry  to 
suffering  humanity.  His  emphasis  was  always 
upon  sin  and  the  cure  of  it,  even  in  the  report  of 
his  ministry  as  given  by  those  who  saw  the 
material  first;  but  wherever  he  found  men 

1  Luke  10:  18  ff.  2  Mark  1:24;  Matt.  8:  29. 

3  Luke  11:  20.  *LukelO:18. 

5  Ant.  VIII,  2,  5;  Bel.  Jud.  VII,  6,  3.  6  Matt.  12:  27. 


204 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


afflicted  with  disease,  he  seems  to  have  lavished 
his  curing  ministry  upon  them  in  compassion. 
The  cases  of  demoniacal  possession  narrated  in 
the  Gospels  all  appear  to  be  cases  which  we 
would  class  as  psychical  or  physical.  They 
were  diseased  minds,  which  we  treat  under  the 
names  insanity,  epilepsy,  etc.  Sometimes  posses¬ 
sion  and  the  speaking  with  tongues  appear  like 
types  of  alternate  personality. 

Over  these  unfortunates  Jesus  had  a  peculiar 
power.  He  commanded  the  demons  to  speak 
or  not  to  speak;  he  ordered  the  paralyzed  to 
arise;  the  blind  to  open  their  eyes;  the  deaf  ears 
to  open;  and  the  evil  spirits  to  depart  from  those 
who  were  supposed  to  be  tormented  by  them. 
Under  the  spell  of  his  personality  the  patient 
sufferers  were  relieved,  and  restored  to  their 
right  minds.  No  wonder  that  the  writer  of  Acts 
10:  38  summed  up  the  activity  of  Jesus  in  these 
words:  “Who  went  about  doing  good,  and  heal¬ 
ing  all  that  were  oppressed  of  the  devil;  for  God 
was  with  him.”  It  was  hardly  necessary  for 
“the  imagination  of  the  faithful”  to  “deck  the 
form  of  Christ  with  a  rich  garland  of  miracle.”1 
He  did  himself  weave  such  a  garland,  and  the 
gratitude  of  those  who  were  healed  by  him 
adorned  his  name  with  it.  Myth  and  legend 

1  Pfleiderer. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  20 5 


have  done  their  inevitable  work  in  the  Gospels, 
as  in  all  history  of  exceptional  personalities,  and 
it  is  in  no  way  discreditable  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  nor  derogatory  to  the  character  of  Jesus, 
to  confess  it.  Not  this,  but  the  fact  that  there 
is  so  little  of  the  legendarv  and  mythical  element 
in  the  Gospels,  is  the  striking  characteristic  of 
the  story  of  Jesus.  He  did  not  set  so  high  a 
value  upon  the  miracle  as  a  sign  as  his  age  did. 
He  never  yielded  to  the  temptation  to  degenerate 
in  the  use  of  it.  No  self-service,  no  special 
privileges,  no  short-circuiting  in  his  life’s  mo¬ 
mentous  task,  did  he  once  allow.  There  are  few 
miracles  of  Jesus,  and  there  are  none  of  the 
lurid  and  flamboyant  tales  which  cluster  around 
the  names  of  St.  Augustine  and  St.  Francis  and 

manv  another  lesser  follower  of  the  Nazarene. 
«/ 

Of  the  former,  four  hundred  miracles  are  told; 

of  the  latter,  twelve  hundred.  In  1906,  Father 

Seraphim  was  canonized  in  Russia  and  accredited 

with  no  less  than  ninety-four  miracles.  Of  Jesus, 

thirtv-six  at  the  utmost  are  named.  The  re- 
*/ 

straint  of  the  Gospels  is  in  contrast  to  the  theology 
that  places  Jesus  in  an  atmosphere  of  magic  and 
sets  the  miraculous  at  the  forefront  of  his  career 
as  the  strongest  proof  of  his  divine  mission  to  the 
race. 

Everywhere  the  works  he  did  were  actuated 
*/ 


206 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


by  emotions  of  pity  and  love.  His  powers  were 
exerted  to  help  his  preaching  of  the  gospel  of 
salvation  from  sin,  and  to  relieve  necessity  or 
suffering.  Even  the  three  instances  in  which  he 
is  said  to  have  raised  the  dead  to  life  are 
told  with  a  restraint  and  simplicity  almost  as 
remarkable  as  the  incidents  themselves.  These 
facts  cannot  be  overlooked  in  estimating  the 
miraculous  activity  of  Jesus,  but  they  give  the 
miracles  a  certain  standing  apart,  where  each 
must  be  judged  by  itself  according  to  the  evi¬ 
dence. 

There  are  four  Greek  words  in  the  Gospels 
for  miracles,  o-^peTa,  repara,  davfxacna,  Swap,  as; 
signs,  wonders,  wonderful  things,  and  mighty 
works.  Jesus  regarded  miracles  in  this  last 
sense,  and  the  power  to  work  them  he  never 
doubted  as  his  inheritance  from  God.  The 
other  -words  convey  a  meaning  more  common  in 
the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  sphere  of  the 
current  Messianic  thought.  It  was  not  pleasing 
to  Jesus,  to  say  the  least,1  and  it  may  have  been 
really  painful,2  to  have  the  emphasis  so  univer¬ 
sally  placed  upon  that  portion  of  his  ministry 
which  was  subordinate  in  his  mind,  and  wholly 
incidental.  Mighty  works  are  ascribed  alike  to 

1  Matt.  12:  39;  16:  4:  John  4:  48;  10:  38;  14:  11. 

2  Mark  8:  12. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  207 


Jesus  and  to  John,1  and  indeed  to  any  one  who 
seemed  to  use  power  for  service  in  healing.2  It 
was  therefore  not  a  Messianic  qualification,  but 
rather  a  more  common  rabbinic  service  which 
Jesus  rendered  in  his  mighty  works.  He  de¬ 
pended  upon  conditions,3  and  knew  that  virtue 
had  gone  out  of  him  when  he  healed.4  He  made 
his  mighty  works  to  serve  as  an  appeal  to  re¬ 
pentance,  like  his  preaching.5  Rejecting  the 
idea  of  proving  his  divinity  by  miracles,  or  of 
attracting  attention  to  himself  by  them,  he  speaks 
of  signs  and  wonders  generally  when  using 
apocalyptic  material,6  and  possibly  also  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  with  reference  to  his  resurrection,7 
although  this  passage  is  misplaced  in  time  and 
misinterpreted  as  referring  to  his  body. 

The  miracles  of  Jesus  may  be  classified  as 
miracles  of  healing,  of  mercv  and  of  instruction. 
The  science  of  medicine  was  not  vet  born,  but 
was  a  crude  empiricism,  mingled  intimately  with 
cruder  superstitions.  Death  was  not  considered 
insurmountable,  but  physical  resurrection  had 
become  a  popular  hope  in  connection  with  the 
apocalyptic  Messianic  expectation. 


1  Matt.  13:  54;  14:  2. 

2  Matt.  7:  22;  Mark  9:  39. 

3  Matt.  13:  58:  Mark  6:  5. 

4  Mark  5:  30. 


3  Matt.  11:  20  ff. 

6  Luke  21 :  11. 

7  John  2:  18,  19. 


208 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


The  old  attempt  to  trace  the  miracles  to  an 
origin  in  parables  has  been  revived  of  late,  but 
it  proves  too  much,  in  an  age  when  science 
recognizes  that  there  are  many  laws  of  natural 
life  and  personal  touch  with  other  persons  and 
with  nature  which  we  have  not  yet  mastered. 
Parabolic  and  other  pedagogic  accretions  gath¬ 
ered  about  them,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
Jesus  healed  the  sick.  An  event  which  is  a 
miracle  to  one  person  need  not  necessarily  be 
one  to  another  who  has  more  knowledge  or  a 
wider  experience.  Hobbes  in  The  Leviathan 
(chapter  27)  pointed  that  out  long  ago.  The 
very  acts  which  Jesus  performed,  set  in  our  day 
and  surroundings,  would  not  seem  to  any  one 
miraculous,  but  rather  as  Jesus  himself  regarded 
them,  mighty  works  of  a  mighty  soul;  wrought 
according  to  laws  of  personality  not  yet  wholly 
known,  but  destined  to  be  formulated  and 
brought  into  common  use. 

The  miracles  of  mercy,  like  the  turning  of 
water  into  wine,  the  calming  of  the  storm,  the 
feeding  of  the  multitude  and  the  raising  of  the 
dead,  all  lie  in  the  realm  of  psychological  possi¬ 
bility,  and  can  be  explained  more  easily  as  the 
work  of  a  noble  soul  through  suggestion  and 
personal  psychoses  than  as  the  twisting  of  para¬ 
bolic  sayings  about  the  highly  magnified  per- 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  209 


sonality  of  Jesus.  Latitude  must  be  given,  of 
course,  for  the  interpretation  the  age  put  upon 
events,  and  for  an  inevitable  transference  of  accent 
from  the  realm  of  psychology  to  that  of  external 
occurrences.  For  the  cure  which  we  would 
account  for  as  a  matter  of  psychological  influence, 
or  the  experience  which  we  believe  to  be  mediated 
through  personality  in  the  realm  of  mind,  the 
Jews  could  not  help  objectifying  and  explaining 
according  to  the  current  faith  in  occult  spiritual 
interruptions  into  nature.  Here  is  the  origin  of 
legend,  which  becomes  a  magnifying-glass  through 
which  events  grow  with  remarkable  precision. 

The  miracles  of  instruction  are  numerous  and 
suggestive  of  the  pedagogic  interest  of  Jesus. 
The  withered  fig-tree  is  one  such,  and  others  are 
the  healing  of  the  Syrophenician  woman’s 
daughter,  and  the  boy  at  the  foot  of  the  Mount 
of  Transfiguration.  The  stilling  of  the  storm  1 
and  the  walking  on  the  water,  if  they  were  mi¬ 
raculous  at  all,  and  not  mere  psychical  illusions, 
belong  in  this  class,  with  the  draught  of  fishes 
near  Bethsaida.  The  raising  of  Lazarus,  told 
by  only  one  evangelist,  and  he  the  farthest 
removed  from  the  event  in  time,  yet  has  close 
relations  with  the  resurrection  story,  and  may  be 
of  pedagogic  interest  in  the  scheme  of  the  teach- 
1  See  J.  Weiss,  Das  alteste  Evangelium,  p.  184  ff. 


210 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


ing  of  Jesus.  Here  if  anywhere  we  find  myth 
and  legend,  alleviating  the  pain  of  loss  and  the 
dread  of  death  under  the  resurrection  faith. 

Of  the  entire  thirty-six  miracles  narrated  of 
Jesus,  eight  only  are  not  miracles  of  healing, 
if  we  include  under  that  head  the  raising  of 
Lazarus  and  the  widow’s  son  at  Nain.  Of  these 
eight,  two  may  be,  and  probably  are,  duplicates 
of  one  occurrence,  —  the  feeding  of  the  multi¬ 
tude.  That  event,  together  with  the  turning  of 
water  into  wine,  the  calming  of  the  storm,  and 
the  walking  on  the  water,  is  probably  explicable 
upon  a  purely  psychological  basis,  and  has 
attached  to  itself  certain  parabolic  interests  of 
an  allegorical  suggestion.  The  miraculous  draft 
of  fishes,  and  the  cursing  of  the  fig-tree 
are  explicable  on  the  ground  of  the  extremely 
acute  and  sensitive  perception  of  nature  that 
belonged  to  the  make-up  of  Jesus,  and  the  story 
of  the  stater  is  a  way  of  telling  how  at  his  sug¬ 
gestion  Peter  returned  for  a  day  to  his  craft  to 
earn  the  required  tax.  Thus  it  is  possible  to 
bring  all  the  miracles  attributed  to  Jesus  into 
two  classes,  —  his  cures  of  sickness,  even  unto 
seeming  death,  and  the  acuteness  of  his  psychical 
forces,  which  gave  him  great  influence  over  men, 
which  also  gave  him  unusual  sympathy  with  and 
penetration  of  nature. 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  211 


As  to  the  three  narratives,  the  raising  of  Jairus’ 
daughter  from  the  dead  in  the  Synoptists,1  the 
raising  of  the  widow’s  son  at  Nain  in  Luke,2  and 
the  raising  of  Lazarus  in  John,3  it  is  distinctly 
reported  in  the  first  and  the  last  instance  that 
Jesus  pronounced  the  seeming  death  to  be  sleep.4 
To  be  sure  the  wailers  beside  the  maid’s  couch 
“  laughed  him  to  scorn,  knowing  that  she  was 
dead,”  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  careful  to  ex¬ 
plain  the  words  as  spoken  of  the  death  of  Lazarus, 
and  to  add  the  words  from  Jesus’  lips,  “Lazarus 
is  dead.”  This  is  enough  to  raise  the  question 
whether  Jesus,  by  his  keen  insight  and  his  in¬ 
tense  sympathy  with  life,  did  not  appreciate  a 
distinction  between  actual  dissolution  and  an 
apparent  death  which  was  rather  related  to  coma 
or  suspended  animation,  and  which  would  result 
in  death  if  the  subject  were  not  delivered  from 
it.  Even  in  this  day  we  do  not  know  what  death 
is,  and  the  wisest  men  use  words  to  conceal  their 
ignorance  regarding  it,  while  the  gruesome  his- 
torv  of  mistakes  in  this  region,  which  were  dis- 
covered  when  too  late,  reveals  to  us  how  wide  the 
field  is,  and  how  liable  it  was  to  be  entered  by 


1  Matt.  9:  18-26;  Mark  5:  22-43;  Luke  8:  41-56. 

2  Luke  7:  11-15. 

3  John  11 :  1-44,  assuming  this  to  be  literally  true. 

4  Luke  8:  52;  John  11 :  11. 


212 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


one  whose  apperception  mass,  in  all  that  con¬ 
cerned  life,  was  so  acute  as  that  of  Jesus  was. 
Until  we  have  defined  life  and  know  more  about 
death,  we  cannot  say  that  Jesus  could  not  have 
rescued  these  three  persons  from  certain  and 
premature  doom. 

Whether  or  no  Jesus  believed  that  he  actually 
raised  the  dead,  it  seems  certain  that  his  con¬ 
temporaries  believed  it,  and  so  countless  mul¬ 
titudes  since  have  believed.  In  our  modern 
thought  of  nature  and  natural  law,  there  are  two 
possible  attitudes  to  be  taken  toward  these  three 
narratives,  and  they  comport  with  the  two  posi¬ 
tions  open  to  us  regarding  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  himself.  The  first  suits  the  mind  of  a 
conservative  temper,  and  finds  its  refuge  in  the 
midst  of  the  chaos  now  existing  in  thought  upon 
matter  and  concerning  death.  What  is  matter? 
Mere  pencils  of  force?  An  electrical  phenome¬ 
non  ?  A  figment  of  the  mind  ?  And  what  is 
death?  How  absolute  is  it?  Two  persons  are 
rescued  from  the  water,  both  apparently  dead. 
Restoratives  are  applied,  and  skilful  manipula¬ 
tion  of  the  bodies  is  resorted  to.  After  hours, 
one  lives,  the  other  shows  no  signs  of  life.  What 
is  the  difference  ?  What  wxas  the  difference 
when  they  were  taken  out  of  the  water,  both 
apparently  drowned?  Where  does  death  begin? 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  213 


—  in  the  ovum  ?  and  where  does  it  end  ?  There 
is  no  definite  answer  to  these  questions  yet,  and 
until  there  is,  no  man  has  a  scientific  right  to  say 
that  Jesus  did  not  raise  the  dead  to  life  again. 

The  second  open  door  leads  to  a  complete 
denial  of  the  narratives  as  unauthentic  romances, 
growing  out  of  a  mighty  faith  and  a  great  affec¬ 
tion,  eager  to  glorify  Jesus  Christ.  Or,  they  are 
regarded  as  spiritual  parables,  not  intended  to  be 
taken  literally  by  the  writers,  but  gradually  trans¬ 
ferred  from  the  didactic  to  the  historical  realm. 

The  first  attitude  relies  upon  the  historicity 
of  the  narratives,  and  commits  to  the  realm  of 
the  psychology  of  Jesus  the  phenomena,  awaiting 
further  light.  The  second,  while  denying  his¬ 
toricity,  accounts  for  the  stories  through  the 
psychology  of  the  race,  as  evidenced  in  history 
and  tradition. 

A  spontaneous  practise  of  self-expression,  not 
a  carefully  studied  and  practised  art,  was  that  of 
Jesus,  for  we  cannot  conceive  of  one  of  his  spirit 
and  bearing  going  to  Egypt,  as  his  Jewish  de¬ 
tractors  said  of  him,  to  learn  the  necromancer’s 
skill.  It  came  to  him  as  a  gift  from  heaven, 
and  was  used  under  the  direct  influence  of  his 
Father  whose  will  he  ever  sought  to  do.  This 
atmosphere  of  spirituality  rested  over  all  his 
works,  and  kept  them  subordinate  to  the  real 


214 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


purpose  of  his  life  in  teaching  and  inspiring  men 
for  the  Kingdom  of  heaven.  Not  once  did  he 
do  what  people  from  Herod  down  demanded  of 
him  constantly;  he  would  not  perform  great 
wonders  for  the  gratification  of  curiosity  or  for 
the  establishment  of  his  claims  by  marvels. 
Differentiated  from  the  necromancers  of  the  East 
alike  in  purpose  and  in  practise,  he  did  what  he 
did  from  a  truly  moral  and  religious  motive,  in  a 
spirit  as  reverent  and  as  ethically  sound  as  that 
in  which  he  taught  the  truth  he  believed. 

Throughout  this  discussion  of  the  miracles,  I 
have  tried  to  transfer  the  emphasis  from  the 
deed  to  the  doer,  from  the  marvelousness  of 
events  to  the  graciousness  of  Christ.  There  is 
no  more  significant  index  of  the  right  attitude 
for  the  student  to  take  toward  the  miraculous 
element  in  the  Scriptures  than  can  be  found  in 
the  story  of  the  Temptation.  In  that  experience, 
as  in  every  exercise  of  the  personal  power  of 
Jesus,  the  one  thing  at  stake  is  not  his,  or  our,  or 
another’s  attitude  toward  nature,  or  divinity,  or 
theories  of  natural  law,  but  the  personality  of  the 
historic  Christ.  Given  such  a  person,  and  un¬ 
usual  mental  powers  are  assured.  Given  such  a 
ministry,  and  unusual  events  will  follow.  To 
reverse  the  order,  and  go  backward  from  effect  to 
cause,  arguing  from  the  Gospel  narrative  the  deity 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  21 5 


of  Jesus  because  he  exercised  divine  functions  in 
interference  with  the  natural  order,  is  not  a  safe 
course  to  follow.  The  divinity  Jesus  himself 
would  not  serve  by  his  exceptional  powers  we 
surely  are  not  called  upon  to  establish  by  them. 
The  harmony  he  always  maintained  with  his 
Father  we  have  no  right  to  break,  in  our  attempt 
to  set  him  on  his  Father’s  throne. 

Every  child  demands  a  marvel.  He  swims  in 

V 

a  mysterious  sea  of  life  upon  whose  shores  he  is 
bound  to  build  castles  and  see  giants  and  fairies 
at  their  tasks.  It  is  well  if  the  child  grows  to 
maturity  without  drawing  off  this  sea  and  leav¬ 
ing  life  one  arid,  desert  plain.  If  reason  is  to 
delve  and  ditch  and  drain  life  of  all  sense  of 
infinity,  it  will  leave  us  poor  indeed.  If  reason, 
in  the  limited  sense  of  the  term,  undertakes  to 
pass  every  idea  of  the  soul  through  its  alembic, 
humanity  cannot  escape  from  a  life  of  mechanics, 
in  a  house  of  logical  artifice.  We  need  the 
atmosphere  of  the  mysterious,  like  the  moisture 
in  the  air,  to  soften  lines  and  lend  beautv  to  the 
landscape.  We  need  the  fine  humility  that  climbs 
hand  in  hand  with  reason  to  the  heights,  whence 
larger  horizons  ever  stretch  and  where  the  life 
that  now  is  takes  its  place  as  a  very  small  section 
of  the  life  that  has  been  and  is  yet  to  be.  We 
cannot  get  on  a  single  day  without  the  sense  of 


216 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


the  Infinite  about  us,  the  symbols  of  which  alone 
are  made  plain  to  our  best  thought,  while  the 
reality  ever  reaches  on  beyond  our  ken.  While 
we  are  bound  to  search  out  a  cause  in  every 
effect,  and  to  explain  whatever  we  find,  if  wTe  can, 
there  lies  a  vast  realm,  even  life  itself,  the  First 
Cause,  and  all  the  origin,  course,  and  destiny  of 
life,  beyond  our  finite  reach,  eternal  and  secure. 
We  can  no  more  dispense  with  the  miraculous 
to-day  than  past  ages  could,  nor  so  long  as  chil¬ 
dren  remain  childlike  can  wTe  venture  to  remove 
these  wonder-stories  from  the  Bible.  They  are 
not  to  us  of  the  twentieth  century  just  what  they 
were  to  those  of  the  first  Christian  decades,  of 
course,  nor  even  what  they  wrere  to  the  medieval 
world.  But  they  serve  a  purpose  still,  and  always 
will,  for  him  who  has  any  imagination  and  eyes 
to  see  things  invisible.  Is  it  not  true  that  the 
childlike  heart,  retained  in  maturity,  still  finds 
satisfaction  in  the  atmosphere  of  mystery  that 
envelops  even  the  things  our  hands  have  handled 
and  our  microscopes  explored,  until  a  larger  faith 
than  that  of  childhood  supersedes  the  crude 
unbelief  that  once  broke  it  down  ?  This  is  the  his¬ 
tory  of  many  minds  as  they  pass  from  faith,  un¬ 
questioning  and  open  to  all  impressions,  to  doubt 
and  uncertainty,  then  on  to  unbelief;  until  a 
larger  experience  and  a  clearer  vision  bring  them 


MIRACLES  AND  ATTITUDE  OF  JESUS  217 


back  again,  not  indeed  to  the  childish  faith,  but 
to  a  stronger,  broader,  richer,  and  more  vital 
trust  in  an  immanent  and  beneficent  Creator, 
working  his  will  constantly  on  every  hand.  Such 
a  faith  makes  room  for  miracles,  properly  de¬ 
fined;  it  even  requires  them,  as  the  mind  explores 
the  vast  uncharted  region  where  God  touches 
humanity.  Thus  every  act  of  God  not  under- 
stood  is  classed,  until  men  learn  the  law  by  which 
it  is  accomplished,  in  nature  or  in  the  human 
mind.  But  should  the  time  ever  come  when  all 
the  laws  of  the  activities  of  God  are  fully  under¬ 
stood,  even  then  the  same  sense  of  an  eternal 
outreach  beyond  will  possess  the  mind,  and  the 
experience  of  mystery  will  arise  from  the  very 
excess  of  light. 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  AS  HE 

REGARDED  THEM 

The  earliest  Gospel,  that  of  Paul,  declares  a 
well-established  doctrine  of  the  death  of  Jesus, 
as  ‘Tor  our  sins,”  and  adds  “according  to  the 
scriptures”  (1  Cor.  15:  3).  He  must  have  found 
such  a  belief  grounded  in  Old  Testament  quota¬ 
tion,  when  he  became  a  member  of  the  Christian 
society.  This  does  not  afford  time  for  a  my- 
thopeic  theory  to  grow.  It  requires  an  earlier 
origin  of  the  belief  in  the  death  of  Christ  as  a 
means  of  deliverance  from  sin,  and  in  the  resur¬ 
rection  as  an  incentive  to  new  life  and  the  hope 
of  the  world.  That  origin  we  find  in  the  teach¬ 
ing  of  Jesus  himself,  toward  the  end  of  his  life, 
given  in  suggestion  and  warning,  in  emotional 
appeal  and  sober  statement  of  fact,  but  never  in 
formulated  doctrine  or  svstematic  creed.  He 

J 

left  those  to  the  men  who  came  after  him,  and 
minds  are  still  wondering  over  the  material  fur¬ 
nished  in  his  word  and  deed.  Wendt 1  believes 


1  Wendt,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus,  II,  239  ff. 

218 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  219 


that  Paul  “remodeled”  the  thought  of  Jesus  as 
to  death  so  as  to  make  it  efficacious  for  the  for¬ 
giveness  of  sins,  which  Jesus  did  not  teach.  The 
text  of  the  Gospels  suggests  another  point  of  view, 
and  affords  ground  for  the  belief  that  Jesus  grew 
through  experience  into  a  fuller  and  clearer 
appreciation  of  the  nearness  and  the  meaning  of 
his  death. 

From  the  first  his  gentle,  cheerful,  confident 
nature,  full  of  the  sunshine  of  life,  respondent  to 
the  beauty  of  the  world  and  the  needs  of  man, 
met  with  indifference,  misunderstanding,  and 
opposition.  It  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that 
these  experiences  should  make  him  wonder  what 
the  end  would  be.  He  made  no  progress  in 
winning  the  nation;  on  the  contrary,  antagonism 
grew.  His  first  successes  were  followed  by  dis¬ 
couraging  loss  of  influence,  even  with  the  people, 
but  especially  with  their  leaders.  He  and  his 
disciples  were  “  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves  ” 
(Matt.  10:  16).  Only  a  blind  optimism  could 
fail  to  see  whither  these  influences  would  inev¬ 
itably  lead.  He  knew  the  history  of  the  prophets, 
he  beheld  the  persecution  of  John,  and  he  per¬ 
ceived  the  spirit  of  the  men  about  him.  What 
could  keep  him  from  speculation  upon  violence 
and  death  as  his  own  speedy  fate  ?  “  This  was 

a  condition  it  needed  no  inspiration  to  draw; 


220 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


all  it  needed  was  an  intelligence  able  to  measure 
moral  forces  opposed,  to  calculate  the  moment 
when  those  who  were  determined  not  to  suffer 
public  defeat  would  make  material  force  the 
final  arbiter  of  the  dispute.”1  Plow  was  he  to 
reconcile  this  fate  before  him  with  the  grooving 
conviction  in  his  soul  that  he  was  the  Messiah 
of  his  people? 

The  Gospels  contain  a  series  of  teachings  than 
which  none  are  more  characteristic  of  Jesus  or 
more  undoubtedly  genuine,  in  which  he  exalts 
the  idea  of  self-sacrifice,  and  commends  it  as 
the  law  of  his  life  and  of  all  high  living.  “He 
that  findeth  his  life  shall  lose  it”  (Matt.  10:  39) 
did  not  mean  some  light  experience,  but  the 
courageous  facing  of  death  itself.  He  doubtless 
recognized  it  as  his  not  distant  end,  before  he 
had  walked  long  with  his  disciples.  A  certain 
feeling  of  pressure  led  him  to  hasten  his  visits 
to  the  cities  and  towns  of  Galilee  (Mark  1 :  37,  38), 
as  if  he  realized  that  the  time  was  short.  When 
the  disciples  of  John  and  of  the  Pharisees  made 
common  cause  and  came  to  him  asking  why  he 
did  not  require  his  followers  to  fast,  his  answer 
implied  that  days  were  coming  when  for  sorrow 
they  would  fast  (Mark  2:  19,  20).  This  fore¬ 
boding  began  very  early  in  his  ministry,  and  grew 
1  Fairbairn,  The  Expositor,  1896,  p.  284. 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  221 


apace  with  tlie  misunderstanding  and  opposition 
which  he  faced.  He  knew  that  love  is  always 
bought  with  pain  and  sold  at  last  in  death.  It 
was  one  of  the  elemental  facts  in  his  thinking 
and  his  life.  Suffering  never  seems  a  stranger 
to  his  consciousness.  Did  he  not  recognize  that 
by  it  depth  and  greatness  come  to  men  ?  Be¬ 
cause  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  resignation  of  the 
glories  of  the  world  and  a  share  in  life’s  bitterness 
became  his  portion.  The  reconciliation  of  this 
new  conception  with  the  popular  ideal,  held  by 
his  disciples,  was  his  greatest  intellectual  task, 
while  he  wore  his  life  away  in  friction  with  resist¬ 
ing  humanity.  Only  his  unconcjuerable  opti¬ 
mism,  based  in  the  love  of  God,  kept  him  true 
and  full  of  hope,  as  he  became  more  and  more 
convinced  that  before  him  stood  the  cross,  and 
that  victory  must  come  through  suffering. 

Jesus  did  not  often  speak  definitely  of  his  own 
death,  and  never  until  after  the  experience  at 
Caesarea  Philippi,  when  he  began  to  prepare  his 
followers  for  seeming  defeat.  Probably  the  dim 
outline  of  disaster  did  not  shape  itself  definitely 
enough  in  his  fancy  for  him  to  say  much  about  it 
earlier.  The  arrival  of  this  crisis,  when  at  length 
the  disciples  recognized  his  office  and  the  exalta¬ 
tion  of  his  person,  reacted  upon  his  own  thinking, 
and  gave  him  a  perspective  he  had  not  known 


222 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


before.  They  confess  that  he  is  the  Messiah, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.  Understanding  that 
fact,  they  must  know  that  he  is  still  “  Son  of  man,” 
and  bound  to  die.  More  than  that,  his  death 
becomes  a  function  of  the  Messianic  office,  and 
is  pregnant  with  new  meanings.  “From  that 
time  forth  began  Jesus  to  shew  unto  his  disciples, 
that  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem,  and  suffer 
many  things  of  the  elders  and  chief  priests  and 
scribes,  and  be  killed,  and  be  raised  again  the 
third  day”  (Matt.  16:  21).  This  was  an  abso¬ 
lutely  new  and  contradictory  idea  to  the  Jews, 
but  so  was  his  whole  scheme  of  an  inner  kingdom. 
The  two  ideas,  a  suffering  Messiah  and  a  spiritual 
kingdom,  were  dependent  each  upon  the  other. 
His  earlier  exhortation  became  a  test  of  disciple- 
ship:  “If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow 
me”  (Matt.  16:  24). 

A  test  it  proved  among  the  Twelve.  They 
were  not  prepared  for  such  radical  application 
of  the  oft-repeated  epigram  about  saving  life  by 
losing  it.  The  glory  of  their  ripened  conviction 
about  the  Messiah  was  upon  them.  They  could 
not  easily  give  up  the  thought  of  power  and  privi¬ 
lege  through  intimacy  with  the  coming  King. 
They  all  felt  in  their  hearts  the  echo  of  Peter’s 
words  of  rebuke  to  the  despondent  element  in 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  223 


their  Master;  and  Mark’s  picture  of  their  estrange¬ 
ment  from  him  (Mark  10:  32)  represents  the  fail¬ 
ure  of  their  adjustment  of  inherited  judgments 
to  the  new  spirit  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  His 
greatest  lesson  was  unfolded  in  his  death.  It 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  half -blind  disciples.  It 
was  a  key  to  much  that  they  had  failed  to  under¬ 
stand.  It  became  the  mysterious  center  from 
which  radiated  influences  that  quickened  mul¬ 
titudes  with  its  truth  that  life  reaches  its  full 
estate  only  when  it  is  sacrificed,  and  that  in  his 
constant  self-giving  Jesus  had  fulfilled  all  that 
was  true  in  the  ancient  sacrificial  system  of  his 
people.  Many  a  Jew  perceived  that  Jesus  had 
realized  the  dreams  of  apocalyptic  vision,  and 

out  of  every  nation  have  come  those  who  find  his 
«/ 

higher  law  of  sacrifice,  in  giving  themselves,  the 
satisfaction  of  the  need  that  built  the  altars  of 
the  world. 

The  Gospel  of  Mark  reports  further  sayings 
of  Jesus  as  to  his  death  as  follows  (9:  9,  10): 
he  charged  the  three  descending  the  Mount  of 
Transfiguration  with  him  not  to  report  their 
vision  until  he  was  risen  from  the  dead.  “And 
they  kept  that  saying  with  themselves,  ques¬ 
tioning  one  with  another  what  the  rising  from 
the  dead  should  mean.”  He  combined  with  a 
reference  to  John’s  death  a  hint  of  his  own  suf- 


224 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


ferings  (9:  12).  Again  (9:  31,  32),  “they  under¬ 
stood  not  that  saying,  and  were  afraid  to  ask  him.” 
He  explicitly  set  forth  before  the  amazed  and 
fearful  disciples  (10:  32-34)  the  sad  facts  he 
faced,  as  they  journeyed  toward  Jerusalem.  In 
spite  of  his  lessons,  he  had  to  challenge  the  pre¬ 
sumption  of  James  and  John  (10:  35-40)  by 
assuring  them  that  they  would  share  his  woes, 
but  that  he  could  not  give  them  seats  of  power. 
And  he  formulated  again  in  striking  phrase  the 
old  truth  (10:  45),  “For  even  the  Son  of  man 
came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.”  The 
word  ransom  (Xvrpov)  indicates  a  price  paid  for 
deliverance  from  bondage,  and  here  for  the  first 
time  Jesus  speaks  of  his  death  as  a  voluntary 
self-sacrifice,  which  if  the  words  are  his  own,  and 
not  a  Pauline  touch,  makes  a  decided  advance  in 
his  teaching. 

In  Mark  12  we  find  the  parable  of  The  Wicked 
Husbandmen.  The  remark  is  added  that  the 
Pharisees  “knew  that  he  had  spoken  the  parable 
against  them.”  The  “little  apocalypse”  in 
chapter  13,  as  if  in  response  to  the  question  of 
the  disciples,  “  When  shall  these  things  be  ?  ” 
only  infers  the  death  of  Jesus.  Here  first  appears 
a  word  about  his  coming  again  as  the  Son  of  man 
“  in  the  clouds  with  great  power  and  glory,”  and 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  225 


he  adds  with  greatest  emphasis :  “  This  genera¬ 
tion  shall  not  pass,  till  all  these  things  be  done,” 
as  if  confining  his  prophecy  to  the  immediate 
future.  Since  Jesus  nowhere  uses  the  language 
of  apocalyptic  or  of  politics  without  giving  it 
the  most  spiritual  and  figurative  meaning,  he 
must  be  interpreted  here  as  speaking  of  disaster 
and  deliverance  soon  to  come.  He  had  in  mind 
experiences  of  a  definitely  personal  and  religious 
sort.  He  reveals  the  same  method  in  the  parable 
(13:  34)  of  the  man  taking  a  far  journey  and 
bidding  his  servants  watch  for  his  return,  —  a 
touch  that  suggests  the  common  attitude  of  faith 
at  the  time  when  the  Gospel  was  written,  and 
which  may  be  shaded  by  local  color. 

The  next  reference  to  his  death  reported  in 
Mark  is  at  the  feast  in  the  house  of  Simon  the 
leper,  when  Jesus  said  of  the  poured-out  nard, 
“She  is  come  aforehand  to  anoint  my  body  to 
the  burying,”  —  a  striking  insistence  upon  the 
imminence  of  the  end.  The  Passover  supper 
follows  with  the  reported  words,  “This  is  my 
body,”  “This  is  my  blood,”  following  the  sorrow¬ 
ful  saying,  “  The  Son  of  man  indeed  goeth,  as  it 
is  written  of  him,”  —  which  is  the  first  reference 
to  prophecy  in  connection  with  his  death  in  the 
mouth  of  Jesus.  From  this  time  on,  every  word 
he  utters  has  its  relation  to  the  impending  doom. 


226 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


“  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine, 
until  that  day  that  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom 
of  God”  (14:  25).  ‘‘All  ye  shall  be  offended 
because  of  me  this  night :  for  it  is  written,  I  wTill 
smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scat¬ 
tered.  But  after  that  I  am  risen,  I  will  go  before 
you  into  Galilee”  (14:  27,  28).  The  prayer  of 
Gethsemane  reveals  the  attitude  of  human  dread 
rising  to  divine  assurance  (14:  36).  At  the  trial, 
when  asked  by  the  high  priest,  “Art  thou  the 
Christ  ?  ”  he  replies,  “  I  am :  and  ye  shall  see 
the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power, 
and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven”  (14:  61,  62). 

These  are  all  the  words  about  his  death  put  by 
Mark  upon  the  lips  of  Jesus.  They  begin  wTith 
the  confession  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  in  a  general 
’warning  -which  the  disciples  utterly  refuse  to 
hear,  and  continue  to  grow  more  definite  and 
detailed  with  every  chapter  until  the  day  of 
doom,  -when  for  the  first  time  he  gives  his  friends 
notice  of  what  to  expect,  and  when. 

In  Matthew  no  definite  allusion  is  made  to 
the  death  of  Jesus  until  (12:  40)  the  passage  about 
Jonah  which  is  interpreted  of  the  Son  of  man 
remaining  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the 
grave.  But  this  explanation  is  not  given  in 
the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  (11:  30)  nor  in  the 
repetition  of  the  comparison  in  Matthew  (16:  4). 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  227 


Moreover,  it  appears  to  be  interpolated  here 
between  verse  39  and  verse  41,  as  an  interruption 
of  the  allusion  to  Jonah  and  Nineveh.  It  is 
probably  a  gloss  which  crept  into  the  text  from 
the  margin,  and  does  not  belong  to  the  words  of 
Jesus. 

The  first  reference  to  his  death  in  Matthew 
(16:  21)  immediately  follows  the  confession  at 
Caesarea  Philippi.  Peter’s  rebuke  of  the  Master 
so  connects  itself  with  his  confession  that  the  new 
emphasis  of  Jesus  at  this  time  was  fixed  in  the 
tradition.  He  formulated  the  principle  from 
this  hour  which  his  experience  had  already 
worked  out:  “ Whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall 
lose  it  ”  (verse  25).  The  next  allusion  follows 
(17:  9)  when  Jesus  charged  his  disciples  to  tell 
no  man  of  the  transfiguration  vision  ‘'until  the 
Son  of  man  be  risen  again  from  the  dead,”  and  in 
verse  12  he  declares  that  the  Son  of  man  shall 
suffer  as  Elijah  (that  is,  John)  did.  Again,  while 
they  still  abode  in  Galilee,  Jesus  warned  them  of 
the  last  things  (17:  22,  23).  In  each  instance,  al¬ 
though  resurrection  is  the  climax  of  his  prophecy, 
the  disciples  were  most  concerned  with  the  fact 
of  his  passion,  “  and  they  were  exceeding  sorry  ” 
(17:  23).  The  same  palliation  of  their  woe  was 
offered  them  on  the  way  up  to  Jerusalem  when 
he  took  the  Twelve  apart  (Matt.  20:  17-19)  and 


228 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


told  them  to  what  they  went.  The  demand  for 
places  in  his  kingdom  (20 :  20-28)  drew  from  him 
the  law  of  service,  —  “even  as  the  Son  of  man 
came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many.”  The 
parable  of  The  Householder  (Matt.  21:  33  ff.) 
was  his  first  declaration  of  his  expected  sufferings 
to  the  crowd,  in  the  elusiveness  of  fancy,  through 
which  many  would  fail  to  see  a  picture  of  him¬ 
self.  The  wail  of  sorrow  over  Jerusalem  followed 
(23 :  37  ff . )  the  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees, 
and  may  be  considered  as  a  reference  to  the 
imminence  of  his  own  sufferings.  “  Ye  shall  not 
see  me  henceforth,  till  ye  shall  say,  Blessed  is  he 
that  cometli  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.”  The  in¬ 
creasing  frequency  of  such  allusions  led  the  dis¬ 
ciples  to  inquire  when  these  things  should  be,  and 
what  signs  they  should  have  of  his  presence 
(24:  3,  margin  A.  R.  V.)  in  the  consummation. 
Then  follows  the  apocalyptic  passage  (24:  4-51) 
leading  up  to  the  three  parables  of  the  virgins,  the 
talents,  and  the  nations,  all  of  them  apocalyptic 
in  their  setting.  After  this  he  referred  definitely 
to  the  approaching  feast  as  the  time  of  his  suffer¬ 
ing,  and  accepted  the  woman’s  alabaster  cruse  as 
a  preparation  for  his  burial  (26:  12).  He  opened 
the  doors  of  his  friend’s  house  in  the  city  with 
the  words  “My  time  is  at  hand,”  and  set  the 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  229 


simple  meal  before  them  as  a  memorial  of  his 
body  and  a  covenant  of  his  blood.  The  other 
details  follow  as  in  Mark. 

Matthew  represents  Jesus  as  recognizing  the 
inevitable  fate  of  goodness,  and  a  universal  law 
of  self-sacrifice,  in  his  sufferings  and  death.  He 
also  adds  to  that  the  vicarious  element  of  good¬ 
ness  ransoming  others.  No  theory  is  suggested 
as  to  how  his  death  was  to  work  the  weal  of  the 
kingdom,  but  he  seeks  the  practical  preparation 
of  the  disciples  for  the  shock,  and  these  funda¬ 
mental  truths  are  emphasized  without  comment. 
It  is  doubtful  if  Jesus  ever  went  further  than  this 
in  speech  about  his  death,  but  it  is  certain  that  he 
anticipated  it  with  courage,  and  assurance  of  a 
resurrection  to  eternal  life  and  more  effective 
action. 

In  Luke  also  there  is  no  reference  to  the  death 
of  Jesus  until  (9:  22)  after  the  confession  at 
Caesarea  Philippi.  The  second  reference  is  con¬ 
nected  with  the  Transfiguration  (9:  31)  where  the 
topic  of  conversation  between  Jesus,  Moses,  and 
Elijah  is  given  as  his  decease.  Then  (9:  44)  he 
taught  the  disciples  what  to  expect  at  Jerusalem. 
In  reply  to  the  Pharisees  who  had  warned  him 
that  Herod  would  fain  kill  him,  he  said  (13:  31  ff.) 
“  Go  and  say  to  that  fox,  Behold,  I  cast  out 
demons  and  perform  cures  to-day  and  to-morrow, 


230 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


and  the  third  day  I  end  my  course.  Neverthe¬ 
less  I  must  go  on  my  way  to-day  and  to-morrow 
and  the  day  following:  for  it  cannot  be  that  a 
prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem.”  A  lament 
over  the  city  follows.  In  an  apocalyptic  passage 
(17:  22  ff.)  he  predicts  his  sufferings  (verse  25) 
and  minutely  instructs  the  Twelve  alone  what  they 
may  expect  in  Jerusalem  (18:  31-33).  On  the 
journey  toward  the  city  on  Palm  Sunday  he 
weeps  over  it  (19:  41-44)  and  predicts  its  ruin. 
The  parable  of  The  Wicked  Husbandmen 
(20:  9ff.)  is  spoken  in  the  city,  and  a  longer 
apocalyptic  passage  (21 :  5-36).  At  the  Passover 
supper  he  expressed  his  longing  to  eat  that  feast 
with  them  before  he  suffered.  The  other  refer¬ 
ences  are  like  those  of  the  other  Gospels.  In 
Luke  nowhere  appears  a  word  of  interpretation 
or  of  explanation  of  his  death,  nor  is  direct  allu¬ 
sion  to  his  resurrection  made,  save  in  two  of  these 
passages.  The  failure  of  his  disciples  to  com¬ 
prehend  his  meaning  is  emphasized,  and  the 
calamities  to  come  upon  the  city  are  elaborated. 
But  nothing  further  than  the  fact  of  his  warning 
given  the  disciples  can  be  found  in  Luke. 

Jesus  expressed  himself  remotely  as  to  the  last 
things  in  numerous  parables  like  those  of  the 
sower,  the  wheat  and  the  tares,  the  mustard  seed, 
the  grain  growing  day  and  night,  the  selfish 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  231 


neighbor  and  the  unjust  judge,  the  sleepy  virgins, 
the  talents  and  the  pounds,  the  rich  man  and 
Lazarus,  the  vine-dresser  and  the  husbandmen; 
also  in  such  words  as  those  of  the  petition  “Thy 
kingdom  come  ”  and  “  The  kingdom  of  God  is 
within  you  ”  (Luke  11:2;  17:21).  But  in  none  of 
these  does  he  hint  at  any  doctrine  in  his  mind 
connecting  his  own  sufferings  with  the  redemption 
of  mankind.  Three  facts  he  held  increasingly 
before  him:  death,  resurrection,  and  judgment. 
This  last  function  he  assigned  to  the  future  (Matt. 
7:21  ff. ;  13:41  ff.;  16:  27;  25:  81;  Mark8:  38), 
and  it  is  everywhere  somewhat  remote.  The 
place  of  judge  he  refused  to  occupy  (Luke  12:  14; 
John  8:  15),  and  assigned  the  task  to  the  Twelve 
in  the  Kingdom  to  come  (Matt.  19:  28;  Luke 
22:  30),  while  he  did  not  hesitate  to  put  himself 
before  them  as  the  test  by  which  all  men  shall 
be  tried  (Matt.  10 :  33,  40;  11 :  28;  19 :  14;  25:  40). 

During  his  last  days  on  earth,  as  he  saw  the 
fateful  end  approaching,  Jesus  evidently  gained 
a  new  and  deeper  conception  of  his  mission. 
With  that  enlargement  of  his  self-consciousness 
his  death  meant  more  to  him  and  became  a  cor¬ 
related  factor  in  his  work.  He  looked  upon  those 
who  were  its  instruments  with  a  feeling  of  infinite 
sorrow  and  pity,  and  pronounced  his  woes  upon 
them.  He  believed  that  his  death  was  ordered 


232 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


in  the  economy  of  God  as  a  factor  in  the  deliver¬ 
ance  of  man  from  sin  and  the  establishment  of 
his  Kingdom  on  the  earth.  His  gospel  was  to 
be  preached  throughout  the  world  (Mark  13:  31; 
14:  3-9).  At  the  Last  Supper,  the  words  used 
of  his  body  and  blood  in  each  of  the  Synoptists 
indicate  a  dynamic  influence  to  be  exerted  upon 
the  disciples,  whether  in  Mark’s  use  of  vnlp  7roWC)v 
or  Luke’s  virep  vpuv  or  Matthew’s  more  extended 
7 repi  7roAAwv  ets  a<pe(nv  ap/xprciov.  His  death  is  for 
them,  for  the  many,  and  more  specifically,  for 
“the  remission  of  sins.” 

Just  what  he  means  by  these  words  we  can  see 
more  clearly  by  referring  to  the  tradition  of  St. 
Paul,  who  uses  y  Kaivy  810,0*7*77.  The  last  word 
appears  also  in  Mark.  There  is  a  covenant 
significance  in  the  blood  poured  out.  As  the 
ancient  rite  of  covenant  required  the  use  of  blood 
from  a  sacrifice,  to  be  sprinkled  upon  the  parties 
involved,  so  blood  sealed  this  covenant  also 
between  God  and  man. 

The  principle  of  sacrificial  symbolism  has  been 
of  world-wide  extent,  because  so  well  suited  to 
primitive  thought.  The  totem  of  the  tribe  was 
the  most  sacred  object  for  an  offering  to  the  gods. 
Individuality  is  not  emphasized  among  savages, 
nor  was  it  recognized  in  the  Old  Testament  as  it 
is  to-day.  Jahveh  was  a  national  divinity  to 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  233 


the  early  Hebrews,  with  whom  the  entire  tribe 
must  maintain  covenant  relations.  To  be  cere¬ 
monially  clean  and  attached  through  the  nation 
to  Jahveh  was  enough.  Prophets  and  psalmists 
introduced  a  closer  personal  relation,  and  the 
New  Testament  confirmed  it.  This  idea  became 
the  medium  through  which  St.  Paul  tried  to  make 
the  meaning  of  the  death  of  Jesus  plain. 

Hunting  and  pastoral  people  considered  the 
life  and  the  blood  to  be  identical.  This  belief 
gave  meaning  to  the  practise  of  transfusion  to 
bind  a  covenant.  The  Semitic  prohibition  of 
eating  blood  (Lev.  3:  17;  7:  26,  etc.)  maintained 
the  ancient  regard  for  it  as  a  symbol  of  life,  and 
focused  Jewish  thought  upon  the  blood  of  Jesus. 
It  was  natural  that  he  should  speak  of  it  himself 
as  a  sign  of  the  covenant  he  was  giving  his  life 
to  establish  between  God  and  man.  And  the 
substitution  of  the  symbol  of  the  wine  for  the 
actual  blood  was  not  a  weakening,  it  was  rather 
a  strengthening,  of  the  spiritual  quality  for  which 
the  blood  wTas  only  a  sign. 

Thus  Jesus  seized  upon  primitive  ethnic  ideas, 
the  simple  expression  of  human  need,  and  gave 
them  their  full  meaning.  It  wras  a  contrast  to  the 
old  covenant  between  God  and  Israel,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  realization  of  it.  The  completion 
of  the  entire  Mosaic  system  by  wrhich  the  Jew7 


234 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


had  sought  union  with  God,  and  the  removal  of 
it  before  its  fuller  spiritual  prototype,  was  in¬ 
volved  in  his  death  as  Jesus  understood  it.  As  a 
Jew  speaking  to  Jews,  Jesus  could  not  fail  to 
emphasize  this  transition  from  the  national  to  the 
universal,  from  form  to  spirit,  from  the  covenant 
lost  in  ceremonial  to  a  covenant  real  in  life.1  For 
this  sacrifice  he  conceived  himself  to  be  the 
lamb,  that  through  him  his  disciples  and  all 
men  might  enter  into  loving  covenant  with  God. 
He  was  not  laying  down  his  life  as  a  substitute 
for  theirs,  nor  as  an  offering  to  appease  the  wrath 
of  God.  He  distinctly  sought  to  free  men  from 
a  fear  of  death  as  retribution,  through  his  death. 
He  was  the  paschal  lamb,  the  means  of  a  family 
covenant  with  God  who  safely  guards  the  home 
and  guides  the  life  of  every  family.  Jesus  never 
feared  death,  but  with  noble  dignity  faced  it  as 
his  own  highest  act.  He  referred  to  it  only  when 
exalted  with  love  and  pity  for  mankind,  and  for 
his  disciples  in  particular.  But  the  agents  of  his 
destruction  were  wicked  husbandmen,  hypocrites 
who  are  untrue  to  their  prophets,  traitors;  and  he 
mourned  over  the  Holy  City  left  in  such  hands. 

1  “His  thoughts  about  his  death  attached  themselves  to 
the  picture  of  the  servant  of  Jahveh,  whose  function  was 
prophetic  rather  than  priestly.”  —  Stevens,  The  Christian 
Doctrine  of  Salvation ,  p.  53. 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  235 


There  is  evidence  of  a  terrific  strain  upon  him  in 
Gethsemane,  but  no  craven  fear.  At  first  he 
looked  upon  death  as  an  awful  necessity  to  which 
he  must  submit;  but  afterward  he  sought  for  the 
soul  of  goodness  in  it.  The  picture  of  his  calm 
courage,  “his  face  set  as  a  flint,”  is  magnificent. 
The  unruffled  dignity  and  moral  integrity  with 
which  he  was  clothed  at  his  trial  reveal  the 
majesty  of  his  spirit. 

The  story  of  the  last  experiences  of  Jesus  offers 
the  most  moving  scene  in  all  history.  The 
power  of  simple  pity  it  arouses  has  never  been 
estimated  fully  as  a  compelling  force  in  religion. 
St.  Francis  is  not  the  only  person  whose  body 
has  showed  the  stigmata  after  long  dwelling  on 
the  sufferings  of  Christ.  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church  has  utilized  the  crucifix  with  acute  per¬ 
ception  of  its  power  to  move  the  human  soul. 
Accompanied  by  gratitude,  pity  has  an  immense 
psychic  value  in  religion,  and  the  passion  of 
Jesus  is  its  most  sacred,  its  most  prolific  field. 
Yet  none  can  satisfy  the  facts  by  arguing  that  the 
tragedy  was  arranged  for  any  such  effect,  or  that 
pity  exhausts  the  high  emotions  which  the  death 
of  Jesus  is  calculated  to  arouse  in  us. 

Jesus  never  could  have  held,  with  the  rabbis, 
that  through  excess  of  suffering  of  a  righteous 
man  a  store  of  merit  is  available  to  cover  up  the 


236 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


sins  of  others.  No  substitutionary  ideas  are 
compatible  with  his  emphasis  upon  individuality 
and  the  personal  justice  as  well  as  fatherly  love 
of  God. 

Death  was  a  bitter  fate  for  Jesus,  which  he 
accepted  as  inevitable,  which  he  reconciled  with 
the  love  and  care  of  God  through  his  perfect 
assurance  that  he  could  not  be  held  in  the  grave. 
That  consciousness  had  become  as  fixed  a  part 
of  his  attitude  toward  life  as  his  trust  in  the  Father¬ 
hood  of  God.  It  was  a  part  of  that  faith  in  which 
he  daily  walked.  His  Jewish  compeers  believed 
in  a  hazy  immortality  in  part,  and  some  of  them 
were  even  predicting  that  the  just  would  rise  to 
participate  in  the  apocalyptic  kingdom.  Jesus 
affirmed  with  all  confidence  his  faith  in  a  future 
life,  both  for  himself  and  for  those  whom  he 
promised  to  shepherd  upon  earth  in  the  spirit 
and  to  meet  in  heaven. 

On  the  second  day  after  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
laid  away  in  the  grave,  out  of  the  heavy  clouds 
that  had  settled  down  upon  the  disciples  and  shut 
all  light  out  and  kept  them  disappointed,  dumb, 
and  desperate,  suddenly  shone  a  beam  of  heavenly 
light.  Jesus  was  alive!  Some  of  their  number 
had  seen  him.  They  were  electrified  by  the 
report.  What  had  happened?  No  eye-witness 
of  the  act  of  rising  from  the  dead  was  ever  known; 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  237 


and  if  there  had  been  one,  his  report  would  be  of 

no  more  value  to  this  age  than  the  word  of  the 

disciples  who  declared  they  saw  and  spoke  with 

Jesus.  Something  manifestly  came  into  the 

blackness  of  their  premature  night  to  turn  it  into 

a  new  and  brighter  day.  They  knew  that  the 

Master  lived.  The  very  rearrangement  of  the 

davs  of  the  week  is  evidence  of  the  firm  convic- 
«/ 

tion  which  made  the  first  day  even  more  sacred 
than  the  seventh  day,  enshrined  as  that  day  had 
been  through  centuries  in  the  most  exalted  rev¬ 
erence.  No  explanation  of  recuperation,  no  hint 
of  aromatic  spices  and  embalmers  arts,  will  avail. 
To  say  that  Jesus  was  resuscitated  from  a  swoon 
for  a  season  and  restored  to  his  disciples,  plunges 
us  into  difficulties  greater  far  than  those  suggested 
by  the  simple  narrative  of  the  Gospels.  The  one 
thing  of  which  we  are  positive  is  this,  —  that  Jesus 
died  and  rose  again  according  to  the  faith  of  the 
disciples,  who  were  so  convinced  of  his  return  to 
them  that  they  knew  it  to  be  true,  and  joined  it 
to  his  final  ascension  as  a  historic  fact  as  real  as 
any  they  had  ever  experienced. 

Was  the  resurrection  a  matter  of  desperately 
aroused  psychoses  in  the  disciples,  seizing  upon 
the  frequently  reiterated  teaching  of  Jesus  that 
he  could  not  die  but  must  rise  and  earrv  on  his 

%J 

work?  Was  it  an  inevitable  reaction  from  the 


238 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


abyss  of  their  disappointment?  Did  sudden  joy 
simply  have  to  follow  intense  grief?  If  so,  then 
the  floods  of  their  expectancy,  dammed  up  for 
a  day,  broke  loose  with  a  mighty  momentum,  to 
carry  them  across  the  depths  of  death.  Perhaps, 
as  H.  J.  Holtzmann,  V.  Fritzsche  and  E.  von 
Dobschuetz  assert,  the  empty  tomb  gave  certainty 
to  the  story  of  the  women  who  discovered  it,  but 
could  give  only  one  explanation  for  the  absence 
of  the  body  of  their  dear  dead.  No  thought  of 
the  removal  of  the  body  by  the  owner  of  the  tomb 
could  once  dispute  with  the  conviction  that  Jesus 
had  arisen  from  the  dead. 

Are  the  facts  beneath  the  Gospel  story  psychic 
rather  than  material  ?  Even  so,  they  never 
could  have  been  preserved  in  any  other  form 
than  that  in  which  the  evangelists  have  given 
them  to  us,  —  as  objective,  material  events. 
That  disciple  group  could  not  possibly  discrimi¬ 
nate  between  subjective  experiences  and  objective 
facts  when  they  came  to  tell  of  them.  The  narra- 
tNe  handed  on  from  mouth  to  mouth  and  age  to 
age  would  grow,  as  such  a  story  must,  and  losing 
nothing  of  the  essential  fact  would  gain  that 
drapery  wdiich  at  the  same  time  preserves  the  fact 
and  conceals  its  nakedness.  The  birth  of  a  new 
faith  in  the  souls  of  the  disciples  would  absorb 
their  entire  being.  The  correlation  of  it  with 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  239 


the  recent  teaching  of  Jesus  and  with  the  inheri¬ 
tance  of  apocalypse  and  prophets  would  confirm 
and  establish  it.  Here  was  the  synthesis  of 
truths  they  had  tried  in  vain  to  join  together, 
of  the  present  and  the  future,  of  the  real  and  the 
ideal,  of  the  transcendent  and  the  immanent, 
of  the  Kingdom  on  earth  and  that  in  heaven.  A 
great  reaction  seized  them,  and  from  despair 
they  turned  to  jubilation.  They  shared  in  the 
lofty  inspiration  of  the  prophets.  All  sorrow  and 
suffering  were  glorified  as  a  dark  vestibule  lead¬ 
ing  into  the  palace  of  joy  and  peace.  Death 
became  a  friend  and  helper,  necessary  for  the 
consummation  of  their  lives,  and  of  the  Kingdom 
which  was  dearer  than  life. 

This  is  the  note  of  triumph  sounded  every¬ 
where  by  St.  Paul,  as  by  the  evangelists  in  the 
closing  chapters  of  the  Gospels.  The  last  great 
enemy  of  man,  more  feared  than  all  the  rest,  the 
grim  destroyer  of  hope  and  joy,  was  defeated. 
The  world  turned  its  course  that  day  toward 

V 

higher  things,  and  through  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  mediated  through  the  faith  of  his  disciples, 
faced  a  higher  end  and  laid  hold  upon  its  highest 
joys.  Is  it  anything  to  be  wondered  at  that 
the  disciples  reveled  in  an  abandonment  of  Pen¬ 
tecostal  exuberance  ?  Whether  pathological  or 
not,  the  experiences  of  those  days  are  easily 


240 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


accounted  for,  and  turned  as  they  were  to  the 
winning  of  men  to  the  faith  so  lately  given  its 
death-blow,  they  bear  witness  to  the  reality  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  Lord. 

The  passion  for  a  personal  conscious  ego  sur¬ 
viving  death  became  far  more  vigorous  at  the 
birth  of  Christianity,  and  has  not  lessened  with 
the  centuries.  In  its  true  value  it  is  not  a  mean 
self-interest  of  souls  seeking  to  “get  saved,”  but 
the  great  affirmation  of  the  spirit  that  it  must 
and  shall  go  on.  It  is  the  psychological  conscious¬ 
ness  at  its  height,  demanding  the  perfection  of  an 
incomplete  evolutionary  process.  The  highest 
reach  of  our  humanity  is  in  the  direction  of  the 
Infinite. 

The  idea  of  immortality  has  been  of  immense 
gain  to  the  race.  It  has  righted  the  overturned 
sense  of  justice  and  provided  for  a  natural  rela¬ 
tionship  between  pleasure  and  goodness,  pain 
and  wickedness.  It  has  given  a  larger  universe 
to  enlarging  souls  and  it  has  afforded  ground  for 
a  theodicy  unanswerable  because  of  its  extended 
field  of  life. 

The  state  termed  death  lies  beyond  the  reach 
of  life,  and  precludes  a  renewal  of  the  vital  process 
in  the  precise  environment  and  organism,  accord¬ 
ing  to  modern  science.  But  the  word  death  is 
still  popularly  used  in  a  loose  way,  as  it  was  in 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  241 


ancient  times,  for  the  apparent  cessation  of  the 
vital  functions.  How  large  the  territory  covered 
by  it  is,  none  knows.  It  is  a  relative  word,  as 
employed  in  the  Bible,  and  the  New  Testament 
writers  never  doubted  the  possibility  of  a  physical 
resurrection.  They  did  not  make  modern  dis¬ 
criminations  between  voluntary  suspended  ani¬ 
mation,  like  that  of  Indian  fakirs,  or  the  hypnotic 
states  or  coma  induced  by  certain  diseases,  and 
the  absolute  organic  change  called  death.  There 
was  nothing  impossible  to  them  in  the  idea  of  a 
soul  returning  to  the  body  it  had  left  and  resum¬ 
ing  life.  This  will  account  for  the  physical 
demonstrations  which  the  writers  and  early 
readers  of  the  New  Testament  required  to  estab¬ 
lish  their  faith  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 

We  must  account  for  Christian  history.  It 
pivots  on  the  resurrection.  St.  Paul  was  war¬ 
ranted  in  his  assertion,  “  If  Christ  be  not 
risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith 
is  also  vain.”  Christianity  is  the  religion  of 
eternal  life.  Immortality  is  its  crown  and  com¬ 
pletion,  without  which  it  fails  to  command  assent. 
In  one  of  three  ways  must  the  apostolic  convic¬ 
tion  as  to  the  resurrection  be  accounted  for.  It 
was  a  fact  ocularly  demonstrated,  according  to 
laws  of  life  and  matter  of  which  we  are  wholly 
ignorant;  or  it  was  a  fact  belonging  to  the  psychic 


242 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


realm,  a  “  veridical  hallucination  ”  dependent 
upon  some  extra-organic,  supernormal  stimuli; 
or  it  was  a  subjective  hallucination,  dependent 
upon  some  intra-organic  or  normal  extra-organic 
stimulus.  Was  the  constantly  reiterated  sug¬ 
gestion  of  Jesus  that  he  could  not  and  would 
not  remain  in  the  grave,  coupled  with  the  over¬ 
whelming  shock  of  his  awful  death,  the  stimulus 
to  turn  the  scales  and  swing  the  minds  of  the 
disciples  up  out  of  their  despair  into  the  trans¬ 
ports  of  joy  which  seized  them  like  an  obsession, 
and  fixed  forever  in  their  faith  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  of  their  beloved  Master  and  his 
presence  with  them  everywhere,  not  only  in  Jeru¬ 
salem  but  in  their  old  haunts  in  Galilee  and 
throughout  the  world  ? 

In  whichever  direction  the  temper  and  training 
of  individual  minds  may  lead  them,  the  Gospel 
narrative  cannot  be  taken  literally  as  it  stands, 
for  it  raises  too  many  questions  and  fails  to 
satisfy  our  modern  thinking.  Under  even  the 
first  theory,  the  text  is  inadequate,  because  it 
insists  upon  the  raising  of  the  physical  body  that 
lay  in  the  tomb,  but  treats  it  now  as  flesh  and 
blood  to  be  handled  and  to  take  food,  and  now 
as  an  ethereal  or  “astral”  body  that  passes 
through  locked  doors  and  must  not  be  touched, 
and  rises  into  the  air  to  be  lost  in  the  heavens. 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  243 


It  is  no  disparagement  to  the  Scriptures  to 
admit  this,  for  was  it  not  inevitable,  whatever 
happened,  that  the  story  should  take  the  only 
possible  veridical  form  for  its  preservation  ?  Pre¬ 
cisely  the  service  wdiich  the  architectural  device 
called  “  entasis  ”  rendered  to  the  sensitive  eye  of 
the  Greek  when  the  builders  of  the  Parthenon 
enlarged  the  middle  diameter  of  each  column 
and  lengthened  frieze  in  order  that  these  bodies 
might  not  appear  to  be  concave  and  so  lose  the 
perfection  of  straight  lines,  the  treatment  of  these 
Scripture  events  has  done  for  the  temple  of  our 
faith,  by  enlargement  here  and  there,  correcting 
vision  and  making  all  parts  appear  right  —  lined 
and  perfect  in  their  symmetry. 

It  may  be  maintained,  as  it  is  believed  by  not 
a  few,  that  through  operation  of  laws  as  yet  un¬ 
known  to  us,  in  that  spiritual  body  which  St.  Paul 
declares  to  be  as  real  as  is  the  earthly  body,  Jesus 
did  appear  to  his  disciples,  and,  through  the  only 
channel  by  which  conviction  could  be  assured 
for  them,  did  establish  their  faith  in  him  as 
the  eternal  Master  of  their  lives  and  head  of  the 
Kingdom  he  taught  them  to  declare  to  all  the 
world.  Even  then,  body  is  not  the  essential 
element  by  any  means,  for  the  spirit  is  the  true 
and  only  basis  of  the  Lordship  of  Christ.  But 
our  humanity  demands,  even  for  spiritual  con- 


244 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


ceptions,  a  form  for  them  to  occupy.  Incarna¬ 
tion  saves  theism  from  dead  abstractions,  and  it 
has  preserved  the  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the 
soul.  Who  dares  to  deny  to  the  body  other  forms 
and  modes  of  being,  in  this  day  of  electric  theories 
of  matter,  and  a  basic  ether  in  which  the  scien¬ 
tific  imagination  revels  with  an  abandon  that 
brings  back  the  age  of  faith,  and  points  to  doors 
sure  to  open  to  reveal  secrets  where  the  realms  of 
science  and  religion  join.  Multitudes  require 
some  sort  of  an  organism  as  an  essential  to  their 
thought  of  personal  identity.  Until  we  know 
what  matter  is,  their  necessity  must  be  respected. 

But  I  would  claim  for  others  an  equal  right  to 
hold  either  of  the  other  views  suggested,  and 
expect  them  to  profess  a  faith  as  strong  in  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord,  based  upon  these  purely 
psychological  experiences,  unknown  as  such  to 
the  men  and  women  of  Galilee,  but  explained  to 
the  satisfaction  of  an  increasing  number  in  our 
day  by  the  application  of  psychological  principles 
now  known  and  classified.  “A  Christian,”  says 
Wernle,1  “has  no  difficulty  in  accepting  as  the 
ground  of  his  belief  in  the  resurrection  the  real 
projection  of  Jesus  into  this  world  of  sense  by 
means  of  a  vision.” 

Nothing  can  dislodge  Jesus  Christ  from  his 
1  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  Vol.  I,  p.  115. 


DEATH  AND  RESURRECTION  OF  JESUS  24 5 


throne  as  the  prince  of  immortal  life,  which  was 
brought  to  light  through  his  gospel.  He  gathered 
the  scattered  hopes  and  aspirations  of  the  world 
and  fixed  them  in  a  new  and  enduring  faith  by 
which  the  race  has  been  lifted  up  and  spurred  to 
its  noblest  endeavor.  Jesus  saw  his  death  as  a 
sacrifice  of  goodness  suffering  for  the  sake  of  all 
the  good  there  is  in  men,  and  to  it  he  invariably 
joined  a  resurrection,  by  which  goodness  took 
hold  on  life  eternal.  Thus  the  life  of  self-giving 
was  both  vindicated  and  made  perfect  in  God. 


CHAFFER  XII 


THE  PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS 

Unless  our  study  has  brought  us  to  a  new  and 
richer  appreciation  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  has  failed 
in  its  purpose  and  its  possibilities.  To  gather 
up  the  results,  it  is  necessary  to  review  and  state 
more  fully  certain  points,  expanding  principles 
and  drawing  inferences.  Can  we  have  a  Psy¬ 
chology  of  Jesus  ?  An  answer  is  possible  in 
the  light  of  the  preceding  chapters.  We  are  able 
to  reconstruct  the  self-consciousness  of  Jesus  in 
its  main  outlines.  That  will  lead  us  to  inquire 
as  to  the  secret  of  Jesus,  and  to  entertain  a  vision 
of  The  Universal  Christ. 

I.  Can  We  Have  a  Psychology  of  Jesus? 

Serious  charges  of  inadequacy  are  brought 
against  the  Gospels,  and  sober  facts  regarding 
their  disagreements,  their  faults  due  to  a  genera¬ 
tion  of  oral  tradition,  the  utter  want  of  an  “ap¬ 
paratus  criticus  ”  among  the  evangelists,  and  the 
inevitable  influence  of  the  subjective  element 
upon  men  who  wrote  with  their  hearts’  blood. 

246 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  247 


Yet  in  spite  of  all,  how  can  we  escape  from  the 
conviction  that  we  have  in  the  Gospels  the  out¬ 
lines  of  a  character  which  we  can  fill  in  with 
probability,  if  not  with  absolute  certainty?  The 
farther  we  enter  into  the  spirit  of  the  apostolic 
age  and  the  clearer  we  apprehend  the  factors 
determining  the  thought  forms  of  that  generation, 
the  greater  will  be  our  conviction  that  we  can 
know  the  Christ  behind  tradition  and  construct 
anew  for  ourselves  his  inner  life.  Wrede  has 
made  a  most  clever  book,1  but  he  carries  his 
theorv  of  the  mystery  of  the  Messiah  too  far,  and 
we  are  convinced  with  Bousset 2  that  he  goes  too 
far.  He  has  attributed  to  a  single  motive  events 
and  experiences  which  do  not  belong  together. 
There  was  a  Messianic  secret,  but  that  does  not 
make  it  impossible  that  Jesus  may  have  had  a 
purpose  in  employing  it  as  a  factor  in  his  training 
of  the  disciples. 

If,  as  John  Fiske  suggests,  the  object  of  civi¬ 
lization  is  to  keep  mankind  young  by  conserving 
and  lengthening  the  period  of  adolescence,  then 
Jesus  fits  the  ideal  requirement  of  the  process, 
for  he  took  a  generation  to  prepare  for  the  brief 
career  in  which  he  moved  the  world.  For  that 
period  we  can  describe  no  logical  development, 

1  Das  Messiasgeheimniss. 

2  Theologische  Rundschau,  Jan.,  1902,  pp.  347-362. 


248 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


but  his  genetic  progress  can  be  traced,  and  that 
is  what  we  need  in  order  to  understand  his  mission 
to  men.  One  cannot  so  easily  escape  the  im¬ 
pression  of  simple  reality  made  by  the  narrative 
of  the  four  or  five  critical  events  in  the  history 
of  Jesus,  —  the  baptism,  the  temptation,  the  con¬ 
fession  at  Csesarea  Philippi,  the  transfiguration, 
and  the  action  and  passion  of  the  last  week. 
Tradition  was  hung  upon  these  as  a  spider’s 
web  upon  its  moorings.  No  matter  how  much 
may  have  been  filled  in  between,  these  are  ren¬ 
dered  absolutely  necessary  by  Christian  history 
from  the  first.  No  tradition  can  cohere  or  sur¬ 
vive  without  some  scheme  of  facts  that  belong 
to  the  sources.  These  cannot  be  invented,  how¬ 
ever  much  the  fancy  may  spin  about  them  and 
between.  And  by  these  fixed  points  the  circle 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  must  be  drawn.  Wrede  de¬ 
clares  that  mere  psychologizing  over  the  person 
of  Jesus  is  unwarranted  and  vain.  But  there  is 
a  scientific  use  of  the  imagination  in  psychology 
for  reconstructing  a  man’s  soul  and  formulating 
his  inner  life  from  even  a  few  fixed  facts,  pre¬ 
cisely  as  there  is  a  scientific  use  of  the  imagination 
in  zoology  for  reconstructing  the  form  and  life- 
history  of  a  mastodon  from  a  few  decayed  bones. 

Our  day  and  race  do  not  judge  historical 
accuracy  in  the  same  way  that  the  first  Christian 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  249 


century  and  the  writers  of  Scripture  in  Pales¬ 
tine  estimated  it.  We  demand  objectivity  where 
they  were  often  satisfied  with  subjective  expe¬ 
riences.  Our  prosaic,  matter-of-fact  minds  do 
not  easily  appreciate  the  poetic  atmosphere 
through  which  the  Semite  saw  things  and  in 
which  he  wrote.  We  forget  that  “The  poet’s 
ideal  is  the  truest  truth.5'1  Men  of  small  literary 
culture,  enthusiastic  in  advocating  a  new  faith, 
could  hardly  be  expected  to  escape  the  subjective 
bias  and  the  fanciful  trend  of  the  times.  In 
reading  the  Gospels  we  must  make  allowance  for 
these  things,  while  avoiding  the  extreme  position 
of  men  like  Wrede  who,  in  seeking  to  sail  clear  of 
the  Scylla  of  a  too  psychological  appreciation  of 
Jesus,  has  struck  on  the  Charybdis  of  making 
his  criticism  a  psychology  of  the  evangelists. 
We  are  safe  in  holding  at  least  a  hypothetical 
certainty  as  to  the  truth  of  the  picture  of  Jesus 
drawn  so  consistently  in  the  first  three  Gospels, 
while  a  reverent  criticism  carries  on  its  priceless 
labors  of  testing  and  approval.  Matthew  af¬ 
fords  us  glimpses  of  a  great  Jewish  deliverer. 
Mark  paints  for  us  a  true  reformer  of  heroic 
mold.  Luke  introduces  us  to  a  gentle,  gracious 
servant  of  good-will,  ministering  to  the  needs  of 
the  people  in  a  broad  humanity.  Each  phase  of 
1  Hawthorne,  The  Great  Stone  Face 


250 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


his  life  and  character  belongs  to  the  historic  influ¬ 
ence  which  gave  birth  to  Christianity.  There  was 
a  certain  universalism  in  the  Master  that  gave 
him  a  wide  and  stable  basis  for  appeal  to  men. 

At  the  same  time  let  us  not  fail  to  recognize 
the  use  of  inevitable  vehicles  for  carrying  the 
truth  to  us  across  the  ages.  “The  best  mvth  is 
a  deeper  and  broader  expression  of  human  nature 
and  needs  than  reason  or  historv  has  vet  attained, 

1/  t 

and  is  thus  the  shape  revelation  might  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  take.”1 

II.  The  Self-consciousness  of  Jesus 

Justice  has  not  been  done  to  the  mentality  of 
Jesus,  and  the  perfect  sanity  in  which  he  touched 
the  world.  He  developed  roundly,  fully,  and 
was  set  svmmetrieallv  in  life.  His  practical 
wisdom  appears  in  the  way  in  which  he  met  men. 
He  reached  their  minds,  their  hearts,  and  turned 
the  current  of  their  lives  with  a  steady  hand  and 
a  firm  purpose.  His  mental  activity  was  very 
great,  with  the  consistency  of  power  guided  to  a 
simple  goal,  and  that  goal  uniquely  his  own 
discovery.  He  grasped  the  meaning  of  history 
so  inclusively  as  to  form  a  masterly  conception 
of  its  past  and  future  continuity.  His  teaching 
has  an  inner  unity  that  is  a  far  truer  sign  of  his 

1  Hall,  Adolescence,  II,  p.  332. 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  25 1 


endowment  than  any  ordered  system  would  have 
been. 

Emotionally  he  was  well  developed,  as  men  of 
power  always  are.  The  emotions  become  an  aid 
to  correct  judgment,  and  bear  witness  to  depth 
of  soul  when  held  well  in  leash.  “  Want  of  feel¬ 
ing,’’  said  Dr.  Johnson,  “is  want  of  parts.”  This 
Great  Heart  lived  profoundly  in  his  affections 
and  his  sympathies  for  men,  especially  for  those 
whom  he  saw  astray  as  sheep  without  a  shepherd. 
Every  phase  of  life  allured  him,  with  his  passion 
to  increase  the  abundance  of  living.  Sin  and 
woe  and  want  called  him  out,  and  yet  he  never 
lost  his  joy  and  peace,  for  he  was  poised  in  wide 
vision,  and  drank  deep  of  the  springs  of  hope. 
His  optimism  was  deduced  from  his  perpetual 
experience  with  God  and  his  faith  in  the  efficacy 
of  love  as  a  solvent  of  the  woes  of  a  weary,  wicked 
world. 

His  life  was  thus  strongly  motivated,  and  his 
will,  his  sense  of  power,  was  irresistible.  He 
was  so  single-hearted,  he  knew  so  well  whither 
his  life  must  lead,  in  the  clear  apprehension  of 
his  Father’s  love  and  the  conviction  that  his 
opportunity  with  men  lay  in  love,  that  he  possessed 
an  inner  power  which  was  felt  by  all  who  knew 
him.  He  seemed  to  his  enemies  self-confident 
and  self-assertive.  God-intoxicated  men  are 


252 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


liable  to  give  that  impression.  But  they  are  also 
liable  at  last  to  lose  themselves  precisely  where 
Jesus  found  himself,  in  God. 

After  the  baptism  Jesus  assumed  certain 
Messianic  functions,  although  not  in  accordance 
with  the  popular  program  of  the  day.  He  set 
himself  over  against  Moses  as  an  authority 
superior  to  that  venerated  name.  He  called  him¬ 
self  the  bridegroom  for  whom  people  waited, 
and  the  Son  of  man,  and  he  forgave  sin.  He 
proclaimed  a  greater  than  Jonah  or  Solomon  or 
the  temple  as  at  hand  in  his  own  person.  With 
a  note  of  power  he  called  down  woes  upon 
Capernaum  and  Bethsaida  where  men  did  not 
turn  unto  him. 

He  was  bolder  than  any  other  teacher  in  his¬ 
tory.  Never  egotistical,  his  egoism  was  sublime. 
And  for  all  his  claims  he  found  proof  in  himself, 
but  nowhere  else.  He  made  of  his  inner  life  the 
supreme  test  for  all  mankind.  He  ventured  to 
pass  judgment  upon  all  history,  and  to  establish 
himself  upon  the  throne  forever.  He  even  set 
his  death  into  the  scheme  of  his  thought,  and 
made  it,  with  an  audacity  almost  incomprehen¬ 
sible,  a  factor  in  his  success  and  the  chief  proof 
of  his  service  to  men,  the  ground  of  his  ultimate 
appeal. 

Either  he  was  guilty  of  immense  presumption, 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  253 


or  else  he  was  assured  that  men  could  not  get  on 
without  him,  because  he  occupied  an  essential 
place  in  the  evolution  of  the  race.  He  spoke 
with  an  accent  of  authority  as  if  he  felt  the  power 
of  control  over  all  the  world.  He  employed  no 
incantations  or  muttered  spells  such  as  his  con¬ 
temporaries  used  in  casting  evil  spirits  out  or  in 
cure  of  other  diseases.  He  issued  commands  to 
deaf  ears,  blind  eyes,  weakened  muscles,  and  the 
natural  forces  obeyed  him.  He  claimed  authority 
of  personal  relationship  above  all  other,  even  that 
of  parents,1  on  the  ground  that  upon  him  de¬ 
pended  all  future  welfare.2  And  toward  the  end 
of  his  ministry  he  asserted  the  right  of  supreme 
control  over  the  future  of  mankind.3 

Over  thirty  times  in  the  First  Gospel  he  is  re¬ 
ported  as  repeating,  “Verily  I  say  unto  you,” 
often  placing  his  naked  word  over  against  the 
tradition  of  the  elders.  He  did  not  fall  back  upon 
any  prophetic  formula,  “Thus  saith  the  Lord,” 
but  stood  forth  with  an  immediate  inner  con¬ 
sciousness  of  original  authority.  In  the  same 
spirit  he  bade  men  “  Follow  me,”  and  linked  the 
destiny  of  other  souls  to  his  own  person.4  He 

1  Matt.  8:  22;  10:  37. 

2 Matt.  10:  32;  16:  24  ff.;  Mark  8:34  ff.;  Luke  9:  23  ff.; 
12:  8ff. 

s  Matt.  24:  30 ff.;  Mark  13:  26 ff.;  Luke  21:  27 ff. 

^  Matt.  10:  14,  40. 


254 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


pronounced  doom  and  pardon  with  equal  as¬ 
surance,  and  put  himself  above  Abraham  and 
Moses  as  an  authority  for  the  people.  “He  did 
not  preach  his  opinions,  he  preached  himself.”1 

Yet  with  all  his  self-assertion  he  was  the  meek 
and  lowly  Jesus,  walking  toward  his  cross.  He 
professed  to  reveal  no  wisdom ;  he  merely  brought 
home  to  men  the  meaning  of  life.  He  knew  his 
limitations.  He  prayed  to  God  as  other  men  do; 
he  was  obedient  and  submissive  to  his  Father 
in  heaven,  whose  will  he  preferred  to  his  own. 
He  did  not  know  the  times  and  seasons  which 
the  apocalyptic  gloried  in;  and  at  the  last  he  felt 
himself  left  alone  even  bv  his  God.  This  gentle 
teacher,  associating  with  fislierfolk  and  beggars, 
with  the  sick  and  outcast  and  forsaken,  giving 
of  his  time,  his  help,  his  very  soul  to  obscure 
individuals  by  the  way,  —  taking  little  children 
in  his  arms  and  making  use  of  a  title  for  himself 
which  would  tend  to  conceal  his  office  and  place 
him  close  to  every  simple  man  —  bears  a  charm 
of  true  humility  that  makes  one  expect  of  him 
the  greatness  which  humility  never  forsakes. 
Thus  he  united  a  self-consciousness  unique,  sub¬ 
lime,  with  that  humble  spirit  which  mothers  all 
the  virtues  in  mankind. 


1  Renan. 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  255 


III.  The  Secret  of  Jesus 

Jesus  came  into  Jewish  and  so  into  general 
history,  to  assume  a  part  in  it  as  a  reconstructor 
of  the  old,  in  order  that  out  of  it,  in  perfectly 
natural  continuity,  the  new  might  proceed.  But 
his  method  was  one  of  careful  selection  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  own  standards  and  the  highest  spirits 
of  the  past.  “  Every  great  man,”  said  Carlyle,1 
“every  genuine  man,  is  by  the  nature  of  him  a 
son  of  Order,  not  of  Disorder.”  He  comes  not 
to  destroy  but  to  fulfil. 

The  fact  that  he  did  not  altogether  escape 
from  the  thinking  of  his  time  and  people  is  no 
sign  of  failure  in  his  high  design.  His  power  to 
detect  and  assimilate  truth  everywhere  and  in  all 
things  and  all  men  is  manifest  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  he  tolerated  many  a  form  of  thought  or 
speech  not  altogether  true,  and  even  used  them; 
as  one  uses  tongs  to  lay  the  coals  of  his  fire.  But 
one  does  not  make  the  tongs  the  main  thing;  the 
fire  is  the  reality  with  which  he  is  dealing. 

This  makes  Jesus  of  importance  to  every  age. 
He  has  so  much  of  truth  to  give  that  has  not  yet 
been  acquired  by  any  age  or  race,  that  he  must  be 
interpreted  afresh  to  each  generation  and  to  every 
people  in  the  terms  with  which  they  are  familiar, 

1  Lectures  on  Heroes,  p.  272. 


256 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


according  to  the  mental  atmosphere  they  breathe. 
The  manna  of  yesterday  loses  its  freshness  and 
its  savor  to-day,  but  the  same  liberal  hand  pro¬ 
vides  for  the  hungry  still,  and  we  must  arise  to 
gather  for  our  need. 

Jesus  did  not  seek  the  Messianic  office,  nor 
did  he  crave  the  consciousness  that  possessed 
him.  It  was  thrust  upon  his  soul.  A  deep  con¬ 
viction  seized  him,  and  in  regal  spirit  he  arose 
to  bear  the  burden  and  fulfil  the  superhuman 
task.  It  is  impossible  to  appreciate  his  character 
without  this  element  of  finality  and  this  sense  of 
responsibility  to  all  mankind,  which  he  felt  be¬ 
cause  he  knew  that  he  had  come  into  closest 
touch  with  God.  To  attempt  to  account  for 
him  by  the  analysis  of  his  age  is  to  fail.  Dante 
and  Shakespeare  and  Goethe  cannot  be  accounted 
for  by  the  literature  of  the  preceding  ages  or  the 
experiences  of  their  own  day.  Each  added  him¬ 
self  to  all  that  had  gone  before  or  went  on  around 
him.  The  same  is  true  of  Jesus  in  a  multiplied 
form. 

Strauss  believed  that  the  appearance  of  the 
idea  of  humanity  in  history  was  and  ever  will  be 
an  absolute  miracle  which  can  never  be  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  regular  course  of  events  that  we  ex¬ 
plain  by  common  experience.  There  is  in  ever}7 
great  soul  something  of  this  intangible  and  inex- 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  257 


plicable  quality,  for  each  of  them  is  the  partial 
realization  of  the  idea  of  humanity. 

At  the  same  time  Jesus  presented  himself 
everywhere  as  the  path  to  glory,  not  as  the  con¬ 
summation.  He  insisted  that  he  was  a  minister 
rather  than  a  master,  and  cherished  his  humanity 
over  against  divinity.  We  can  ascertain  some¬ 
thing  of  his  psychoses  but  we  can  say  nothing 
of  his  neuroses.  The  common  factors  entered 
into  the  making  of  his  personality  —  heredity, 
environment,  and  the  personal  reaction  to  each. 
The  stronger  the  character,  the  larger  bulks  the 
last  factor  in  its  making.  It  is  the  original  ele¬ 
ment  in  man,  the  new  creation  which  distin¬ 
guishes  him  from  every  brother  or  sister  who 
shares  the  same  heredity  and  environment.  It 
is  the  ineluctable  ego,  the  “quidam  divinus 
afflatus”  which  Cicero  declared  was  found  in 
every  man.  In  personality  lies  the  secret  of 
Jesus.  Apart  from  that  his  contribution  to  his¬ 
tory  is  merely  a  fragmentary  ethical  system. 
That  secret  has  not  yet  been  told,  and  never  will 
be,  in  such  terms  as  men  use  to  explain  the  proc¬ 
esses  of  nature  or  the  work  of  their  own  hands, 
for  it  is  life  itself,  life  at  its  highest,  life  unhindered 
and  supreme.  We  are  studying,  not  mere 
neurological  or  pathological  phenomena,  but 
profound  spiritual  experiences,  expressed  by  the 


258 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


psychoses  of  daily  life,  but  not  accounted  for 
even  by  the  man  himself.  “Any  sincere  soul 
knows  not  what  he  is, .  .  .  can  of  all  things  the  least 
measure  —  himself !  What  others  take  him  for, 
and  what  he  guesses  that  he  may  be;  these  two 
items  strangely  act  on  one  another,  help  to 
determine  one  another.  With  all  men  reverently 
admiring  him ;  with  his  own  wild  soul  full  of  noble 
ardors  and  affections,  of  whirlwind,  chaotic  dark- 
ness  and  glorious  newT  light;  a  divine  Universe 
bursting  all  into  godlike  beauty  round  him,  and 
no  man  to  whom  the  like  ever  had  befallen, 
what  could  he  think  himself  to  be  ?  4  Wuotan  ?  ’ 

All  men  answered,  ‘Wuotan!’”1 

The  leading  force  in  energizing  human  insti¬ 
tutions  is  always  found  in  some  heroic  personality 
who  has  impressed  himself  upon  others  and  im¬ 
parted  to  them  his  enthusiasm  of  soul.  So  with 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  Church.  There  is  no  way 
of  accounting  for  the  organization  apart  from 
the  adequate  person  behind,  or  at  the  head  of  it. 

The  task  for  the  student  of  Christianity  is,  to 
avoid  the  shallow  hero  worship  of  romanticism 
which  stakes  all  on  an  individual,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  escape  the  mechanical  accounting 
for  everything  that  happens  by  the  blind  forces 
of  an  evolving  social  life  without  a  place  for  per- 
1  Carlyle,  Heroes  and  Hero  Worship,  p.  34. 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  259 


sonality.  We  have  reached  a  period  when  some¬ 
thing  of  the  truth  of  evolutionary  progress  is 
recognized  by  all  Bible  students,  with  Ferdinand 
Christian  Baur;  and  we  are  not  so  much  afraid 
of  myth  and  legend  as  forms  of  expression  of 
truth  as  people  were  in  the  days  of  David 
Frederick  Strauss.1  But  we  need  a  clear-cut 
idea  of  the  personality  of  Jesus,  as  the  founder 
of  our  religion;  and  a  new  approach,  neither 
dogmatic  nor  superstitious,  to  him  who,  as 
Ritschl  insists,  and  as  all  Christians  of  every 
name  demonstrate  in  their  thinking,  reveals  to 
us  who  and  what  God  is. 

“  Whenever  men  begin  to  set  forth  their  Christ, 
it  is  an  ideal  either  of  themselves  or  of  some  one 
they  deeply  revere  and  love.”  It  cannot  be 
otherwise.  “  An  ideal  necessarily  mingles  with 
all  conceptions  of  Christ,”  said  Jowett;  “why 
should  we  object  to  a  Christ  who  is  necessarily 
ideal?  Do  persons  really  suppose  that  they 
know  Christ  as  they  know  a  living  friend  ?  Is 
not  Christ  in  the  sacrament,  Christ  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  Christ  in  you  the  hope  of  glory, 
an  ideal  ?  Have  not  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
from  the  age  of  Paul  onwards,  been  always 

1  “  What  the  legend  is  to  history,  the  myth  is  to  psychology. 
It  becomes  a  deeper  and  truer  expression  of  humanity  than 
history.”  —  Dr.  G.  Stanley  Hall. 


260 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


idealizing  this  memory  ?  ”  “  How  fortunate  that 

dogma  about  the  actual  Jesus  is  not  possible!” 
He  is  only  partially  known  to  us;  “enough  to 
assist  us,  but  not  enough  to  constrain  us,”  as 
Jowett  goes  on  to  say.  No  biography  of  him  in 
the  modern  sense  is  possible,  and  just  because 
of  that,  the  various  Christ-ideals  have  arisen  — 
the  grandest,  noblest  thing  Christianity  has  done 
for  the  race  —  and  the  grandest,  noblest  thing 
about  the  creation  of  the  ideal  is,  that  it  is  ever 
expanding  as  the  soul  of  man  expands.  If  we 
had  had  a  full  biography  of  Jesus,  this  would 
not  have  been  possible.  It  is  just  because  the 
details  of  the  life  of  Jesus  are  so  meager  that  the 
ideal  of  the  Christ  has  grown  around  it,  —  giving 
it  in  the  first  place  a  location  and  a  name,  and  in 
the  second  place  finding  for  it  new  organs  of 
expression  in  every  age,  developing  new’  powTers, 
and  assimilating  new  elements  of  human  life  as 
that  life  growrs  richer  and  deeper.”1 

In  seeking  Jesus  wre  do  not  demand  to  know7 
the  data  of  his  life  w7hich  critics  challenge,  nor 
the  very  w7ords  he  spoke,  as  if  this  w’ere  the  essen¬ 
tial  factor  in  our  faith.  We  look  for  the  man, 
his  ideals,  experiences,  motives,  thoughts,  and 
feelings,  and  care  little  for  the  temporary  intel- 

1  “Why  not  Face  the  Facts,”  by  Dr.  K.  C.  Anderson,  The 
Hibbert  Journal,  July,  1906,  pp.  845-860. 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  261 


lectual  equipment  with  which  he  worked  or  the 
minor  limitations  under  which  he  dwelt.  The 
man’s  value  as  a  man  is  what  we  need  to  know 
and  appreciate  anew,  for  in  him  there  is  a  touch 
with  God  which  lifts  our  humanity  to  its  loftiest 
place  and  makes  it  possible  for  us  to  understand 
in  human  terms  the  very  life  of  God.  For  this 

t / 

the  soul  of  man  hungers  and  thirsts.  To  Jesus 
it  will  never  cease  to  turn  with  the  heart’s  eager 
questionings  and  unutterable  longings  for  the 
light.  The  Christ  bom  in  the  heart  is  the  essen¬ 
tial  Christ.  If  the  light  is  forever  to  be  sifted 
down  to  us  through  rich  glass  of  great  age,  bear¬ 
ing  mellow  color  and  designs  elaborate  with 
pictures  from  ancient  stories  and  quaint  legends, 
we  shall  never  know  the  realitv  of  sunlight  soft 
and  warm  and  colorless  in  its  clear  illumination, 
nor  shall  we  be  able  bv  it  to  see  all  our  way. 
But  if  we  can  leave  the  hoary  seats,  and  pass 
outside  the  structure  which  it  has  taken  so  many 
ages  to  build,  and  discover  for  ourselves  the  joy 
of  day,  then  we  shall  be  blessed  indeed  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

Have  we  only  a  dogmatic  Christ?  Is  Christ 
more  Paul  than  Jesus  ?  The  psychological  ap¬ 
proach  brings  us  back  to  Jesus  rather  than  back 
to  Christ;  to  the  person  rather  than  to  the  official; 
to  the  teacher  rather  than  to  the  theologian.  It 

o 


262 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


is  not  a  reversion  to  some  lower,  partial  slage  of 
being,  but  rather  a  reversion  to  type,  from  which 
must  start  true  progress  along  the  pathway  in¬ 
dicated  for  the  higher  man,  whence  our  undue 
magnifying  of  dogma  and  institution,  of  system 
and  order,  has  caused  us  to  swerve.  We  must 
repeat  the  process  instituted  by  Jesus  w'hen  he 
reached  back  past  the  scribes  and  drew  out  from 
the  moldy  chest  of  rolls  the  prophets,  and  set 
them  before  men  with  their  message  of  a  spiritual 
religion.  But  we  have  this  advantage,  —  which 
becomes  a  disadvantage  in  the  difficulty  of  its 
art  and  craft,  —  that  we  seek  to  set  a  personality 
rather  than  a  principle,  a  character  rather  than 
an  atmosphere,  before  this  generation.  We 
enjoy  a  sense  of  finality  in  the  ideal  that  has  sur¬ 
vived  so  many  centuries  and  is  still  unattained, 
and  we  turn  with  confidence  to  him  who  intro¬ 
duced  it,  expecting  to  discover  in  him  the  same 
potency  for  us  that  has  influenced  so  profoundly 
the  history  of  mankind. 

IV.  The  Universal  Christ 

Jesus  says  almost  nothing  of  himself;  save  that 
he  knows  the  Father  and  is  in  perfect  accord 
with  him.  In  that  he  finds  his  fullest  life,  and 
of  that  his  consciousness  consists.  This  is  the 
human  at  its  best.  The  consciousness  of  the 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  263 


God-man  is  the  highest  possible  experience. 
A  unique  and  sublime  personality,  he  went  to 
the  common  experience  of  the  race,  and  sought 
the  solution  of  life  in  the  value  of  feeling,  which 
lies  beneath  all  life.  Life  is  saved,  not  by  ideas, 
nor  in  action  or  passion  under  universal  law,  but 
in  the  instinctive  feelings,  where  it  began.  The 
waters  of  the  ocean  must  return  thither  again  at 
last  for  healing  in  its  purity.  Neither  philosophy 
within  nor  surrender  to  externals  will  satisfy  life, 
—  its  secret  is  within  the  deepest  depths  of  our 
being,  where  is  the  well  of  love.  “  True  piety 
is  earthly  love  transcendentalized,  and  the  saint 
is  the  lover  purified,  refined,  and  perfected.  To 
have  attained  this  insight,  to  have  organized  it 
into  life,  cult  and  a  Church,  is  the  supreme  claim 
of  Jesus  upon  the  gratitude,  reverence,  and  awe 
of  the  human  heart.  No  such  saving  service 
has  ever  been  rendered  to  our  race,  and  we  can 
see  no  room  in  the  future  for  any  other  to  be 
compared  with  it.”1 

The  problem  of  Christianity  is  to  focus  the 
strongest  instincts  on  the  highest  object;  and  this 
is  a  psychic,  not  a  metaphysical  adventure. 
Christianity  is  the  religion  that  brings  the  soul 
to  love  the  most  worthy  things.  The  Christian 
is  the  man  who  bases  life  in  the  genetic  principle, 
1  Hall,  Adolescence,  Vol.  II,  p.  294. 


264 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


and  gives  sonship  to  God  the  place  of  honor  in 
his  thought  and  life,  with  immortality  as  the 
goal.  Love  is  the  causal  instinct.  The  universe 
came  into  being  through  love.  An  eternal  evo¬ 
lution  of  love  proceeds  from  the  Father,  so  that 
Rothe  can  say,  “Love  is  creation,”  or  Schopen¬ 
hauer,  “Love  is  the  wish  to  create.”  Thus  the 
lover  himself  is  developed  and  perfected  with 
perfect  liberty  in  the  new  law  and  joy  of  self- 
realization.  Jesus  anticipated  modern  psychology 
when  he  centered  life  in  sentiment  and  under 
religion  the  richest  and  the  highest  expression 
of  passion.  If  he  came  to  this  through  reasoned 
thought  upon  the  Abrahamic  covenant  which 
found  its  medium  in  the  sex-life  of  the  Hebrew 
race,  he  elevated  that  life  immeasurably  and 
proved  himself  “the  master  mind  of  all  philoso¬ 
phy.”  If  he  came  to  it  instinctively,  through  his 
own  personal  experience,  and  only  by  reflection 
connected  it  with  the  history  of  his  race,  still  he 
fulfilled  that  history  far  beyond  its  promise,  and 
took  a  place  as  leader  above  all  the  patriarchs 
when  he  established  love  as  the  dominant  force 
in  the  upward  struggle  of  mankind.  He  held  in 
his  hand  the  key  to  all  the  hidden  chambers 
where  God’s  most  precious  jewels  are.  Nature, 
art,  science,  all  are  opened  by  love.  Love  on 
the  lower  levels  cannot  see  nor  enter  in;  but  love 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  265 


elevated  to  its  best  is  shut  out  by  no  gates  or 
walls.  The  great  poets  are  great  lovers.  Far 
more  is  due  to  love  than  was  suspected.  Psy¬ 
chology  is  just  beginning  to  give  this  force  its 
due,  as  the  primary  creative  force  and  the  pro¬ 
gressive  impulse  to  the  culmination  of  creation 
in  man's  full  self-consciousness  as  beloved  of 
God,  his  son.  For  man  draws  nearer  to  divinity 
as  he  draws  from  within  his  own  soul  the  re¬ 
freshing  streams  of  life  and  finds  his  power,  his 
authority  there. 

The  assured  certainty  of  Jesus,  resting  not  on 
pure  thinking  but  deep  down  in  the  spirit,  as 
Wemle  insists,1  gave  him  power  as  by  forces 
from  above  to  which  he  abandoned  himself.  In 
the  new  truth  mediated  through  his  experience 
and  his  person  he  lost  himself,  and  thus  he  was 
prepared  to  feel  the  impulse  of  the  history  of  his 
race  coming  to  a  climax  in  his  soul,  where  he 
summed  up  all  the  best  thought  and  feeling  of 
his  people.  A  phylogenetic  growth  in  him  is 
evident,  and  he  focused  it  in  his  teaching  of  the 
Kingdom.  That  is  why  he  made  not  sin,  nor 
justification,  nor  righteousness,  but  the  Kingdom 
the  center  of  his  teaching,  —  a  Kingdom  com¬ 
posed  of  the  sons  of  God  who  are  in  sympathetic 
touch  with  the  Father.  Indeed,  he  went  still 
1  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  vol.  II,  p.  45. 


266 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


further,  and  set  himself  before  men  as  the  ideal 
member,  the  founder  and  leader  of  this  Kingdom, 
and  professed  to  make  his  personal  relation  to 
God  the  model  for  all  the  sons  of  God. 

Certain  modem  interpreters  explain  the  King¬ 
dom  as  a  new  social  order.  It  was  not  that  to 
Jesus.  He  had  no  definite  plan  for  society;  he 
only  taught  social  principles.  He  built  no  insti¬ 
tutions,  but  furnished  the  motor  impulse  which 
in  time  must  organize  itself  as  opportunity  offers. 
His  Kingdom  is  subjective  in  its  origin,  born  of 
the  touch  of  God  upon  his  soul,  but  objective  in 
its  operation,  as  every  age  requires.  He  wTas 
concerned  with  the  first  principles,  and  trusted 
to  the  future  for  their  expression. 

The  power  of  a  personality  rich  in  love,  large 
in  idealism  and  possessed  of  consequent  enthu¬ 
siasm  that  infects  all  men  it  touches  round  about, 
cannot  be  estimated  easily,  much  less  explained 
either  in  its  character  or  in  its  origin.  There 
lies  in  it  something  of  the  divine  and  mysterious, 
too  close  to  our  human  life’s  deepest  reality  to 
analyze  and  coolly  calculate.  Some  influences 
which  served  to  shape  the  expression  of  this  per¬ 
sonality,  some  factors  even  in  its  make-up,  we  can 
trace.  But  having  done  all,  we  cannot  say  that 
we  have  explained  Jesus  Christ  or  reduced  him 
to  the  ordinary  rank  of  heroes.  We  must  still 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  267 


acknowledge  that  in  him  is  something  intangible, 
a  quality  of  goodness,  beauty,  truth,  which  satis¬ 
fies  our  deepest  instincts  and  renders  still,  as  it 
has  always  done,  a  racial  service  of  inspiration 
and  uplift.  He  reassures  humanity,  because  in 
him  nothing  mean  or  low  has  ever  yet  been 
found.  He  illuminates  divinity,  because  all  his 
conduct  represents  to  us  the  divine  way  of  doing 
things,  and  he  himself  declared  that  he  inter¬ 
preted  God  to  man  as  truly  as  man  to  himself. 
The  most  precious  treasure  of  a  people  is  found 
in  its  heroes.  What  they  are  the  nation  will 
become.  The  most  priceless  possession  of  the 
race  is  this  Universal  Hero,  whose  spirit  has 
proved  so  cosmopolitan  as  to  insure  an  44  Oriental 
Christ"’  and  an  44 Occidental  Christ,”  with  a 
power  of  leadership  to  attract  and  move  all 
peoples.  This  super-man,  this  union  of  the 
human  and  the  divine,  this  meeting  point  of  earth 
and  sky,  is  the  evolutionary  type  established 
as  the  ideal  of  a  new  order. 

It  has  been  claimed  of  late  that  Christianity 
is  inadequate  as  a  world-religion,  for  it  has 
fatally  neglected  the  elements  of  the  Beautiful 
and  the  True  in  its  overzealous  pursuit  of  the 
Good.  Such  a  criticism  does  not  give  credit  to 
the  esthetic  and  the  philosophical  elements  in  the 
religion  of  Christ.  True,  Jesus  never  placed 


268 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


the  three  Greek  essentials  upon  an  equality  in 
his  own  life  or  in  the  life  of  the  world.  But  he 
left  a  place  for  the  lesser  qualities  after  he  had 
established  in  the  first  place  that  which  comes 
first  in  the  life  of  mankind,  and  must  come  first 
if  the  race  is  to  survive.  Ethical  character  is  the 
fundamental  element  in  God,  in  the  individual, 
in  history.  Esthetics  follows  as  a  pleasing  but 
not  essential  characteristic.  Intellectual  satis¬ 
faction  always  follows  moral  decision,  and  other¬ 
wise  it  is  a  non-essential  in  the  life  of  man.  Jesus 
established  his  religion  on  the  broadest  and 
simplest  basis,  which  all  men  share.  Esthetics 
depends  upon  gifts  of  sense  or  imagination;  the 
reason  must  be  trained;  but  no  man  is  left  with¬ 
out  a  witness  in  himself  of  righteousness. 

If  education  be  conscious  evolution,  then  it  is 
necessary  for  every  advance  of  learning  that  an 
ideal,  a  model  toward  which  to  strive,  be  set  be¬ 
fore  those  who  are  to  be  trained.  In  the  broader 
equipment  of  the  race,  it  is  essential  that  the 
highest  ideal  be  kept  before  mankind.  Evo- 
lutionally  this  is  the  function  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Human  thinking  requires  an  ideal  man  as  a 
goal  toward  which  we  shall  struggle  upward  to 
our  destiny.  Only  in  such  a  conscious  striving 
can  we  make  progress  on  our  way. 

Jesus  Christ  interpreted  and  spiritualized  the 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  269 


ideal  of  his  race,  and  gave  the  world  in  doing  so 
the  ideal  it  had  sought  in  every  Utopian  dream. 
He  brought  the  natural  and  the  spiritual  into 
harmony,  and  revealed  the  final  destiny  of  the 
age-long  progress  of  life  by  biologic  processes, 
in  a  spiritual  existence  no  less  biologic.  The 
Kingdom  of  God  will  realize  the  final  social 
ideals  of  history,  and  in  it  shall  not  mankind 
find  satisfaction  and  a  fitting  goal  P  “  That  ideal 
figure  will,  and  indeed  must,  remain  unique  in 
our  experience.  It  is  not  a  philosophical  pre¬ 
supposition,  but  history  itself,  which  decides 
whether  or  not  there  has  been  a  highest  point  in 
the  history  of  humanity  when  its  ideal  became 
reality.” 

Jesus  did  not  limit  his  teachings  by  any  ties 
of  time  or  blood.  He  grasped  fundamental 
human  principles,  because  he  cross-sectioned 
life  where  it  touches  God.  He  dealt  in  uni  ver¬ 
sa  Is.  Yet  he  attempted  no  system  of  thought. 
He  simply  taught  with  immediate  reference  to 
present  needs,  and  the  empirical  nature  of  his 
service  made  his  words  generally  applicable. 
He  did  not  pose  as  a  world-philosopher,  but  he 
was  convinced  that  the  cure  of  the  sin  and  misery 
in  those  to  whom  he  ministered  would  suffice 
for  any  man.  The  ancient  faith  of  his  nation 
that  their  God  was  the  God  of  gods  and  Lord 


270 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


of  lords,  and  their  salvation  was  for  the  healing 
of  the  nations,  was  thus  gathered  up  and  fulfilled 
in  the  sublime  faith  of  Jesus  that  he  himself  was 
the  path-breaker  of  mankind. 

Shall  Christianity  still  fulfil?1  Has  it  a  mes¬ 
sage  and  a  mission  for  other  world-faiths  as  it 
had  for  Judaism?  As  the  law  of  Moses  was 
sublimated  to  a  higher  reality  and  the  promise  to 
Abraham  was  ideally  realized  in  the  new  gospel, 
so  it  may  serve  Buddha,  Brahma,  Confucius,  and 
Mohammed,  to  carry  out  each  enduring  impulse 
in  them,  completing  and  unifying  all  in  the  per¬ 
son  and  teaching  of  the  Master.  Buddhism  and 
Mohammedanism  are  the  only  other  missionary 
religions,  and  so  the  only  competitors  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  The  highest  product  of  the  first  is  old 
Japan,  of  the  second  is  Turkey,  —  and  history 
demonstrates  that  these  are  not  on  the  way  to 
realize  an  ultimate  type  of  civilization.  England, 
Germany,  America  are  not  yet  made  perfect, 
but  he  who  is  bold  enough  to  deny  to  them  the 
elements  out  of  which  an  ideal  social  state  shall 
grow  has  in  him  no  hope  of  the  race.  If  Chris¬ 
tianity  will  shed  its  shell  of  dogmatism,  deliver 
itself  anew  from  the  shackles  of  ecclesiasticism, 
and  insist  upon  the  spirit  alone  behind  the  letter 

1  See  Hall,  Adolescence,  II,  p.  361  ff.,  for  a  suggestive  treat¬ 
ment  of  this  idea. 


PSYCHOLOGICAL  APPROACH  TO  JESUS  271 


of  its  law  of  love,  then  it  must  take  its  place  as 
the  supreme  world-faith,  the  satisfaction  of  the 
normal  human  heart,  the  realization  of  every 
national  ideal,  the  consummate  discipline  and 
comfort  of  humanity. 


A  PARTIAL  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF 
THE  FIELD 


Adeney,  W.  F.  Theology  of  the  New  Testament.  N.  Y., 
Whittaker  &  Co.,  1894.  pp.  248. 

Anderson,  K.  C.  Why  not  Face  the  Facts?  Hibbert  Jour., 
July,  1906.  Vol.  4,  pp.  845-860. 

Bacon,  B.  W.  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament.  N.  Y., 
Macmillan  Co.,  1900.  pp.  285. 

Bacon,  B.  W.  The  Transfiguration  Story.  Amer.  Jour,  of 
Theology,  April,  1902.  Vol.  6,  pp.  236-265. 

Baldensperger,  W.  Das  Selbstbewusstsein  Jesu.  Strass- 
burg,  J.  H.  E.  Heitz,  1888.  pp.  192. 

Barrows,  C.  H.  The  Personality  of  Jesus.  Boston,  Hough¬ 
ton,  Mifflin  Co.,  1906.  pp.  247. 

Beyschlag,  W.  Das  Leben  Jesu.  Halle,  E.  Stein,  1887. 
2  vols. 

Bigg,  C.  The  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria.  N.  Y., 
Macmillan  Co.,  1886.  pp.  304. 

Bousset,  W.  Die  Religion  des  Judentum  im  Neutestament- 
lichen  Zeitalter.  Berlin,  Reuther  u.  Richard,  1903. 
pp.  512. 

Bousset,  W.  Jesus.  Tr.  by  J.  P.  Trevelyan.  London, 
Williams  &  Norgate,  1906.  pp.  211. 

Bousset,  W.  Jesu  Predigt  in  Ihrem  Gegensatz  zum  Juden¬ 
tum.  Gottingen,  1892.  pp.  130. 

Briggs,  C.  A.  Messianic  Prophecy.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s 
Sons,  1886.  pp.  519. 

Briggs,  C.  A.  New  Light  on  the  Life  of  Jesus.  N.  Y., 
C.  Scribner’s  Sons,  1904.  pp.  196. 

273 


274 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Briggs,  C.  A.  The  Messiah  of  the  Gospels.  N.  Y.,  C. 
Scribner’s  Sons,  1894.  pp.  337. 

Briggs,  C.  A.  The  Ethical  Teaching  of  Jesus.  N.  Y.,  C. 
Scribner’s  Sons,  1904.  pp.  293. 

Bruce,  A.  B.  The  Kingdom  of  God.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s 
Sons,  1889.  pp.  344. 

Buckham,  J.  W.  Christ  and  the  Eternal  Order.  Boston, 
The  Pilgim  Press,  1906.  pp.  190. 

Charles,  R.  H.  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch.  London,  A.  & 
C.  Black,  1896.  pp.  74  +  176. 

Charles,  R.  H.  The  Book  of  Enoch.  N.  Y.,  H.  Frowde, 
1893.  pp.  391. 

Charles,  R.  H.  The  Book  of  Jubilees.  London,  A.  &  C. 
Black,  1902.  pp.  89  +  275. 

Charles,  R.  H.  The  Assumption  of  Moses.  London,  A.  & 
C.  Black,  1897.  pp.  117. 

Cheyne,  T.  K.  Jewish  Religious  Life  of  the  Exile.  N.  Y., 
G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons,  1898,  pp.  270. 

Cremer,  H.  Biblisch-theologisches  Worterbuch  der  Neu- 
testamentlichen  Gracitat.  6th  ed.  Gotha,  F.  A.  Perthes, 
1889.  pp.  935. 

Dale,  R.  W.  The  Atonement.  London,  Hodder,  1875. 
pp.  503. 

Dalman,  G.  The  Words  of  Jesus.  Edinburgh,  T.  &  T. 
Clark,  1902.  pp.  350. 

Delitzsch,  F.  System  of  Biblical  Psychology.  Tr.  by  R.  E. 
Walhs.  Edinburgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1890.  pp.  585. 

Dill,  S.  D.  Roman  Society  from  Nero  to  M.  Aurelius.  N.  Y., 
Macmillan  Co.,  1905.  pp.  337. 

Dillmann,  C.  F.  A.  Das  Buch  Henoch,  Uebersetzt  und  Erk- 
laert.  Leipzig,  Vogel,  1853.  pp.  62  +  332. 

Domer,  I.  A.  History  of  the  Development  of  the  Doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ.  Tr.  by  W.  L.  Alexander.  Edin¬ 
burgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1892.  2  vols.  in  5. 

Drummond,  J.  The  Jewish  Messiah.  London,  1877. 
pp.  395. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


275 


Edersheim,  A.  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah. 

4th  ed.  London,  Longmans  &  Co.,  1887.  2  vols. 

Edersheim,  A.  Sketches  of  Jewish  Social  Life  in  the  Days  of 
Christ.  London,  Rel.  Tract  Society,  1876.  pp.  342. 
Encyclopedia  Biblica.  Ed.  by  T.  K.  Cheyne  and  J.  S.  Black. 

N.  Y.,  Macmillan  Co.,  1899-1903.  4  vols. 

Fairbaim,  A.  M.  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ.  N.  Y., 
D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1882.  pp.  359. 

Fairbairn,  A.  M.  The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology. 

N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s  Sons,  1893.  pp.  556. 

Fairbairn,  A.  M.  The  Thought  of  Jesus  Concerning  His 
Own  Death.  The  Expositor,  Oct.  1896. 

Foster,  G.  B.  The  Finality  of  the  Christian  Religion.  Chi¬ 
cago,  University  Press,  1906.  pp.  518. 

Gould,  E.  P.  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament. 

N.  Y.,  Macmillan  Co.,  1900.  pp.  221. 

Hall,  G.  S.  Adolescence.  N.  Y.,  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1904. 
2  vols. 

Hamack,  A.  What  is  Christianity  ?  Tr.  by  T.  B.  Saunders. 

2d  ed.  N.  Y.,  Putnams,  1903.  pp.  322. 

Hastings,  J.  A  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s 
Sons,  1904.  5  vols. 

Hatch,  E.  Influence  of  Greek  Ideas  and  Usages  upon  the 
Christian  Church.  London,  Williams  &  Norgate,  1892. 
pp.  359.  (Hibbert  Lectures,  1888.) 

Hausrath,  A.  Neutestamentliche  Zeitgeschichte.  Yol.  1,  Die 
Zeit  Jesu.  2d  ed.  Heidelberg,  1868.  pp.  460. 

Herzog,  J.  J.  &  Plitt,  G.  L.  Real -Encyclopaedic  fur  pro- 
testantisch  Theologie  und  Kirche.  Leipzig,  J.  C.  Hin- 
rich,  1879.  pp.  789. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.  Die  Synoptiker.  Freiburg  i.  B.,  J.  C.  B. 
Mohr,  1889.  pp.  432. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.  Das  leere  Grab  und  die  Gegenwartigen 
Verhandlung  iiber  die  Auferstehung  Jesu.  Theologische 
Rundschau  von  W.  Bousset,  Tubingen,  March  and  April 
1906.  pp.  79-86,  119-132. 


276 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  JESUS 


Josephus,  F.  Works  and  Life.  Philadelphia,  Grigg  Elliot 
and  Co.,  1848.  2  vols.  in  1. 

Juelicher,  A.  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu.  Vol.  1,  2d  ed. 

Tubingen,  J.  C.  B.  Mohr,  1899.  2  vols. 

Keim,  C.  T.  The  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazara.  Tr.  by  A. 
Ransom.  London,  Williams  &  Norgate,  1876-1883. 
6  vols. 

Klausner,  J.  Die  Messianischen  Vorstellungen  des  Jiidischen 
Volkes  im  Zeitalter  der  Tannaiten.  Berlin,  M.  Poppe- 
lauer,  1904.  pp.  119. 

Laurence,  R.  The  Book  of  Enoch  the  Prophet.  Oxford, 
1821. 

Lobstein,  P.  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ.  Tr.  by  V.  Leuli- 
ette.  N.  Y.,  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons,  1903.  pp.  138. 
McConnell,  S.  D.  Christ.  N.  Y.,  Macmillan  Co.,  1904. 
pp.  232. 

Macfarland,  C.  S.  Jesus  and  the  Prophets.  N.  Y.,  G.  P. 

Putnam’s  Sons,  1905.  pp.  249. 

Mathews,  S.  The  Messianic  Hope  in  the  New  Testament. 

Chicago,  University  Press,  1905.  pp.  338. 

Mathews,  S.  History  of  the  New  Testament  Times  in  Pales¬ 
tine.  N.  Y.,  Macmillan  Co.,  1899. 

Meyer,  A.  Die  Auferstehung  Christi.  Tubingen,  J.  C.  B. 
Mohr,  1905.  pp.  368. 

Mommsen,  T.  The  History  of  Rome.  Tr.  by  W.  P. 
Dickson.  New  ed.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s  Sons,  1900. 
5  vols. 

Muirhead,  L.  A.  The  Eschatology  of  Jesus.  N.  Y.,  A.  C. 

Armstrong  &  Son,  1904.  pp.  224. 

Neander,  J.  A.  W.  The  Life  of  Jesus  Christ.  Tr.  by  J. 

McClintock.  London,  Bell,  1888.  pp.  499. 

Nichols,  H.  P.  The  Temporary  and  the  Permanent  in  New 
Testament  Revelation.  N.  Y.,  T.  Whittaker,  1905. 
Bohlen  Lectures  for  1905.  pp.  248. 

Pfleiderer,  O.  Christian  Origins.  Tr.  by  D.  A.  Huebsch. 
N.  Y.,  B.  W.  Huebsch,  1906.  pp.  295. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


277 


Pfleiderer,  O.  Early  Christian  Conceptions  of  Christ.  Lon¬ 
don,  Williams  &  Norgate,  1905.  pp.  170. 

Polano,  H.  The  Talmud;  Selections,  etc.  London,  Warne, 
n.  d.  pp.  359. 

Porter,  F.  C.  Messages  of  the  Apocalyptical  Writers.  N.  Y., 
C.  Scribner’s  Sons,  1905.  pp.  367. 

Renan,  J.  E.  The  Life  of  Jesus.  Tr.  by  Wilbour.  N.  Y., 
G.  W.  Carleton  &  Co.,  1864.  pp.  376. 

Rhees,  R.  The  Life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scrib¬ 
ner’s  Sons,  1900.  pp.  320. 

Riggs,  J.  S.  A  History  of  the  Jewish  People  During  the 
Maccabean  and  Roman  Periods.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s 
Sons,  1900.  pp.  317. 

Ryle,  H.  E.,  and  James,  M.  R.,  eds.  Psalms  of  the  Pharisees; 
called  the  Psalms  of  Solomon.  N.  Y.,  Macmillan  Co., 
1891.  pp.  94  +  175. 

Sanday,  W.  The  Criticism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  N.  Y., 
C.  Scribner’s  Sons,  1905.  pp.  268. 

Schmidt,  N.  The  Prophet  of  Nazareth.  N.  Y.,  Macmillan 
Co.,  1905.  pp.  422. 

Schmiedel.  Jesus’  Self-consciousness. 

Schultz,  H.  Alttestamentliche  Theologie.  Gottingen,  Van- 
derhoeck  u.  Ruprecht,  1889.  pp.  823. 

Schiirer,  E.  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of 
Jesus  Christ.  N.  Y.,  C.  Scribner’s  Son,  1885-86.  5  vols. 

Schiirer,  E.  Das  Messianische  Selbstbewmsstsein  J esu  Christi . 
Gottingen,  Vanderhoeck  u.  Ruprecht,  1903.  pp.  24. 

Smith,  G.  A.  The  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land. 
7th  ed.  N.  Y.,  A.  C.  Armstrong  &  Son,  1900.  pp.  711. 

Soden,  H.,  Baron  von.  The  History  of  Early  Christian  Lit¬ 
erature.  Tr.  by  J.  R.  Wilkinson.  N.  Y.,  G.  P.  Put¬ 
nam’s  Sons,  1906.  pp.  476. 

Soltau,  W.  The  Birth  of  Jesus  Christ.  Tr.  by  M.  A.  Can- 
ney.  London,  A.  &  C.  Black,  1903.  pp.  83. 

Spaeth,  H.  Die  Entwickelung  Jesu.  Leipzig,  Barth,  1872. 
(Vortrage  protestantische.  Vol.  3,  no.  6.) 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


012  01 


575  2654 


